The following is a refutation of Thomas Droleskey’s Christ or Chaos article of November 23, 2011, entitled Retracting Support For Paul Petko. Droleskey’s article was some 40 pages long. What I have decided to do is to simply recreate that article, then add refuting comments at intervals – in red print. In general, “comments” are inserted after one or more paragraphs; but at times, I couldn’t help slipping in a “one-liner” here and there – especially when something particularly outlandish was said.
Dr. Droleskey’s article is what one might call a “formidable” work, judged by its sheer length; and to those people who are predisposed to believe everything that Dr. Droleskey says, it sounds really impressive and convincing. But for these people – those who have been quick to hop on the “condemn Petko” bandwagon -- I ask them to hop off that bandwagon long enough to read what is said here, and to look at his article in an unbiased light (if that is possible). If one reads what he has said, carefully and closely, he will find that what is said, though sounding very convincing, is basically unproven assertion. There is plenty of “documentation,” to be sure; however, documentation is not necessarily proof, but often just mere verbiage.
Dr. Droleskey counts on sheer volume of “information” to overwhelm and impress his reader. It is both his forté and his modus operandi, and it has done yeoman service for him in the past. Usually it is a good strategy, for he could usually count on the average reader not having the time or the energy to reply to such a tome – but this reader has taken that time and energy. It has been an enormous effort, requiring an inordinate amount of time and research -- but, given the gravity of Dr. Droleskey’s charges, a necessary effort.
An attempt has been made by this writer to research everything and to refute it in detail; but at times, simply categorically refuting some things (without “backup”) had to suffice, because of the sheer volume of his assertions (or because it would take an inordinate amount of time to “chase down the lead” and find its sources). However, there should be enough of “detailed refutation” to convince the reader that an adequate preponderance of documentation exists.
As the reader can see, these opening remarks (and the closing ones) are written in blue print, so that they may be identified as such. Dr. Droleskey’s original text has been kept in its original black typeface; and my “comments” – to repeat – have been written in red. One other item of “housekeeping” to mention is that I have reduced the font of Dr. Droleskey’s article in an effort to simply reduce the number of pages it occupies; and I changed its font style to match that which I have chosen to use. Reformatting it in this way takes it from seventy-plus pages down to fifty something.
This article recreation and its adjoining comments constitute what could be considered a small book. I apologize for its length; but it was necessary – especially for those unconvinced “pre-biased” folks who “demand proof” for anything and everything. That being said, I now present Droleskey’s article, along with accompanying comments -- in its exhaustive entirety. Good luck!
Retracting Support For Paul Petko
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Yes, Yet Another Mistaken Judgment on My Part
It is unfortunately the case that I must retract the support that gave earlier this year to Bishop Paul Petko, whose interview with me was posted on this site on Wednesday, May 3, 2011.
I was confident enough in my knowledge of him over the course of twelve years that he was not, despite what I have long seen to be a carelessness of his promiscuous travels, sometimes for long distances, unaccompanied with a married woman that gave the appearance of scandal, prone to giving the appearance of being attracted to young men or to make inappropriate, unwanted advances upon them.
Comment: Brave words! Let’s see what sort of “evidence” ensues to back them up. I think that the operative word here (at least for me) is “appearance.” It is a hallmark of pharisaic, narrow-minded people, that they are invariably preoccupied with the “appearance” of things, not with their actual substance.
I was most tragically mistaken, and it is now my terrible responsibility before God to withdraw my support of him as his remorseless behavior that has come to light in recent weeks has shown him to be a menace to souls and a disgrace to the episcopal office that he received from Bishop Francis Slupski on Friday, March 11, 2011, at Saint Joseph Chapel in Rock Falls, Illinois, in our very presence.
Comment: “Terrible responsibility”? You will learn to regret (and eat) those words (and the ones that follow it), sir!
Apologies To Those Who Had Expressed Reservations About Bishop Petko
It is also my duty before God to apologize to Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas [do you really think that he’s going to accept this olive branch?] of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen for his having criticized Bishop Petko for the latter's association with a man, Ryan Scott, whose "abbey," situated for a time in Galesburg, Illinois, was a den of homosexual activity. Although we had warned Bishop Petko and the married couple [Yeah, sure you did!] that has hosted him in their house in Lizton, Indiana, for most of the past twelve years, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Ritter, not to associate with Ryan Scott (aka "Abbot Ryan St. Anne," who turns out not to have no proof that he was ever baptized a Christian, meaning that he is not a Catholic, no less a priest or a bishop) because of his criminal record, his drug addiction and the horror stories told by those who had associated with him [you forgot to mention that he has bad breath, too!], we knew nothing of the extent of the sodomite problems at the "abbey" until last year, and it was difficult for me to fathom at that time that Bishop Petko was anything other than naive in seeking refuge there. We all make mistakes. I did not realize until recent events that Petko's association with Ryan Scott (aka Randall Stocks) carried with it connotations of proclivities toward patterns of behavior that are unbecoming the Holy Priesthood and can serve as the incentive to others to fall into patterns of grievous sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (for an assessment of Scott given by his former probation officer, please see Pages From the Navajo County Report, which is just one of hundreds of pages of documentation that were sent to me in early-2010 concerning Scott's operations in various states over the years).
Comment: Droleskey’s “documentation” on Scott is irrelevant: Bp. Petko disassociated himself from Scott when he found out who he was (it’s right there in Droleskey’s interview with Bp. Petko). Therefore, even if Droleskey gave a thousand pages of “documentation” on Scott, that has no reflection on Petko. It’s a classic case of “guilt by association.” According to Droleskey’s logic, Churchill and FDR should be condemned for having had association with Stalin. Or, to cite a local example, how about all of us (including Droleskey) who were associated with Dolan and Cekada at SGG: are we “guilty” because we were once “associated” with them? Droleskey’s “evidence here is just more “verbiage” – more of that dung heap.
By the way, “Doc”: the “damage control” with Bp. Pivarunas was a nice touch! After slamming him on “natural family planning,” it was good of you to “suck up” to him with your “apology.” I’m sure that he feels all “warm and fuzzy” now!
Most importantly of all, apart from other apologies that will be noted in this report, is the one that I owe to Father Markus Ramolla and to the people of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church for having been the individual who introduced the then Father Paul Petko to Father Ramolla, encouraging the latter to stop to visit the former in Lizton, Indiana, following Father Ramolla's visit to Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Father Casimir Puskorius and Father Gregory Drahmann of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen in Omaha, Nebraska, in August of 2010. I am the person who is solely responsible for acquainting Father Ramolla with Father Petko, then not a truly ordained priest. No one at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church in Fairfield, Ohio, including those who have served as his unfailing defenders in recent weeks in spite of all of the evidence that was brought to their attention, would know anything about Paul Petko had it not been for me.
Comment: Your fawning “apology” to Fr. Ramolla and St. Albert’s is nauseating. If you really knew that Bp. Petko was as bad as you claim, you had no business acquainting them with him in the first place. There are two possibilities here: first, you are a complete idiot for unwittingly introducing him to them – armed as you were with your (supposed) foreknowledge of Bp. Petko; or, second, you knowingly made the introductions – which makes your culpability even more than Bp. Petko’s (alleged) culpability. If the former possibility is true, no apology is needed; and if the latter, apologies don’t go far enough.
Your little tidbit about Bp. Petko being “then not a truly ordained priest” was another “nice touch” of yours: it had nothing to do with the argument at hand, but it added some negative “spin” on Bp. Petko. Like the similar claim made by those SSPV folks who think that Fr. Ramolla too is not a validly ordained priest, “what does this have to do with the price of eggs”?
Efforts To Assist Bishop Petko in the Past
Indeed, Father Bernard G. J. Hall, who has played his own role in seeking to provide information to Bishop Petko that I believed I had sent to him in confidence, [“Close, but no cigar” – see Comment 1 below] would not be a priest if I had not arranged for a luncheon between the then Father Petko and Father Ramolla on Saturday, February 12, 2011, at Pappadeux Seafood Kitchen in Springdale, Ohio. It was at that luncheon that Father Petko announced the news of his forthcoming episcopal consecration, setting in motion the plans for Father Hall's diaconal and priestly ordinations. And it was shortly after that luncheon that Father Ramolla asked me very specifically, "Are you sure about his reputation?" [see comment 2 below] I answered that there had been what I considered to be baseless allegations in the past, assuring him that I believed that he would not bring discredit upon him or Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church. It is furthermore the case that I worked very hard to rehabilitate Bishop Petko's reputation, which had been badly damaged as a result of his association with the aforementioned Ryan Scott, helping him make contact with Bishops Pivarunas and Robert McKenna, O.P., to seek conditional ordination. I kept in close contact with him once he found out that that he was not a true priest as there was no record of his ever having been baptized. [Ambiguous! – see Comment 3 below] Bishop McKenna kept asking me throughout the summer and into the autumn of 2010 whether Petko had gone to see Bishop Slupski for conditional ordination, expressing relief in December of last year when the ordination had been scheduled. The Ritters telephoned us upon their arrival in Rock Falls, Illinois, on Friday, January 14, 2011, and again the next day following the ordination. We were very happy for them all. We were not their enemies. No matter the present difficulties, we will always be grateful to them for their years of friendship and for their generosity to us, which included providing us a place to park our former motor home on many occasions over the years.
Comment 1: In the opening sentence of the paragraph, Droleskey insinuates that Fr. Hall violated his confidence by giving “confidential” information to Bp. Petko – WRONG on two counts: first, the information to which Droleskey refers – a letter (to Fr. Hall, Craig Toth, and Florent Grassigli) voicing concerns about Bp. Petko -- was NOT confidential when he first sent it out. After receiving the letter, Fr. Hall called Janet Gaye to inform her that he (Fr. Hall) had been told to tell Janet to call Kathy Ritter and tell her (Kathy) that what Bp. Petko was doing was scandalous and had to stop. Janet then asked who it was that told Fr. Hall this. Fr. Hall answered, “Dr. Droleskey.” Janet then asked, “did he call?” Fr. Hall replied, “No, it was an e-mail.” Janet then told Fr. Hall to send her the e-mail.
In the e-mail, Dr. Droleskey said the following: “…And the Ritters knew this to be the case, which is why they will be just fine in their hidey-hole in Indiana, after Kathy vents to Janet Gaye, who better make sure to tell Kathy that the behavior of Bp. Petko is scandalous and has got to stop.” Janet then called Kathy and forwarded the e-mail to her and to Bp. Petko. So it was Janet, NOT Fr. Hall (as Droleskey insinuated), who forwarded the information to Bp. Petko and the Ritters – information which – given its content – they had every right to know. It was a full SIX HOURS later that Droleskey sent out a revised e-mail, stating that it should be kept confidential. Sorry, Doc, you can’t close the barn door after the horse is out!
Comment 2: Fr. Ramolla’s “concerns” about Bp. Petko should have surfaced far earlier than February 2011 – in fact, as early as October 2009, when Bp. Neville made some irresponsible comments (made to Ramolla and Droleskey) about Bp. Petko. This gave Ramolla plenty of time to “research his concerns.”
I see, too, that Droleskey repeated the “Ryan Scott” association again. Here again, as his interview with Bp. Petko pointed out, he (Petko) disassociated himself from Scott when he found out the truth about him (see Q&A’s 23 through 27 in Droleskey’s interview with Bp. Petko).
Comment 3: The sentence is very ambiguous: is the “he” to whom Droleskey is referring Bp. Petko or Ryan Scott? I believe that he’s referring to Scott; but if so, so what?! His not being a valid priest (or being validly baptized) has nothing to do to the allegations against Bp. Petko, so why bring up the “Ryan Scott connection” here again?
A further part of my efforts to rehabilitate Bishop Petko's reputation that had been damaged by his relationship with Ryan Scott consisted of composing the questions for and then publishing my interview with him on May 3, 2011. Father Petko had told me in July of 2009 that his "reputation was dirt" because of his association with Ryan Scott, and it is only because of the work that I did in his behalf that he had an opportunity to become more widely known and even respected. It is a respect, however, that I have learned that he does not deserve, based on a facade that masks behavior that is deeply disturbing and very scandalous, behavior that left deep wounds on the souls of three young men.
Comment: Wow, you’re really wearing out this “Ryan Scott” thing!
Concerns and Criticisms Do Not Represent "Hatred"
That interview, however, was published with reservations as Petko refused to answer several questions that I had posed to him [Sure, NOW you claim this!], and because of the allegations raised in a letter that had been written by Father Christian Kappes, a priest of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, to Father Anthony Cekada that the latter gave, removing his own name, of course, to a layman in Iowa for circulation in an attempt to raise questions about Petko just prior to sabotage Father Hall's priestly ordination on May 4, 2011.
Comment: Cekada, who, by virtue of his own agenda against Fr. Hall (and, for that matter, against Fr. Ramolla too), had a vested interest in making Bp. Petko “look bad.” Therefore, all of his “allegations” against Bp. Petko are to be taken with a huge grain of salt. And, with what we already know about Cekada, him slamming ANYBODY is akin to “the pot calling the kettle black.”
The answers provided me by the Ritters and Bishop Petko on Friday, April 29, 2011, were not satisfactory in many areas. Indeed, Bishop Petko told me after Mass on Sunday, May 1, 2011 that "I don't mean to sound like [Bishop Robert L.] Neville [who did not want public mention made of his involvement in advising Father Ramolla in the weeks before and then after the latter's dismissal by Bishop Daniel L. Dolan from Saint Gertrude the Great Church on November 5, 2009]. However, I'd rather not have this interview posted." Alarm bells went off. Mr. Gary Ritter said the same thing to me in no uncertain, indeed quite blasphemously profane terms [This is simply a lie; Gary Ritter used NO blasphemous or profane language; Droleskey fabricated this for “effect’] on Tuesday, May 3, 2011, just before we were to leave for Ohio from Indiana for Father Hall's ordination. It was only because of Father Ramolla's insistence that the interview was published. And I continued to defend Bishop Petko publicly against Bishop Pivarunas's comments about him in August and September when Bishop Pivarunas was seeking to defend himself against his errors on "natural family planning" and "brain death" (see Just Another Day In The Rubber Room of Traditionalism, Not Under Any Circumstances and For Those With The Eyes To See). That is hardly indicative of any kind of a "vendetta," something that Bishop Petko has accused me of waging against him and the Ritters since we left Indiana on June 29, 2011.
Comment: Droleskey’s articles about Bp. Pivarunas’ errors on “Natural Family Planning” and “Brain Death” do not constitute a defense of Bp. Petko; they merely represent an attack on Bp. Pivarunas. This cannot be used as “evidence” of there being “no vendetta.”
Regarding the Bishop’s reluctance to posting the interview, he stated his real reasons as follows: “I don’t like putting everything on the internet; I am more low keyed than that. Fr. Ramolla wanted it on the internet so people could get to know me. So I said okay, as long as it was just the interview, and no attacks on other people. I was also hesitant because of Drolesky’s reputation as a loose cannon, and did not trust him to stick to that.”
Gary Ritter also said the following to Drolesky: Can’t you just post the interview without attacking everyone who has said anything about us? He [Droleskey] argued, telling me how qualified he is to do this investigation. I said, “I do not doubt your qualifications, I am simply telling you not to do it.” He continued to argue, saying that the Church is bigger than O.L.G.R., and we must defend the truth. I said, “I understand that but this is also our home; and you do not have to pick fights with people to state the truth.”
The Ritters got on Droleskey’s “bad side” simply because they had the audacity to disagree with him at times. Gary Ritter added, “If you disagree with Dr. Droleskey, then you are wrong; and he will tell everyone how wrong you are. We disagreed with him several times, and would not let him dictate how O.L.G.R. [their church] is to be run.” For that unpardonable “sin,” they incurred his unrelenting ire.
Indeed, the former seminarian whose report of Petko's unwanted advances towards him is included below, was an eyewitness to my presenting Bishop Petko a "kringle" coffee cake from Servatii Pastry Shop and Deli that he likes so that he could take it back with him to Indiana on Wednesday, October 11, 2011, just six days before he left for England. Why would a person with a "vendetta" do such a thing?
Comment: Right, Doc! That’s real proof! That cake must have cost you every bit of ten bucks! That’s what I really call “proof of good will,” just like Judas’s “proof of good will” when he kissed Our Lord and said, “Hail, Rabbi”!! If you can’t come up with better examples than a “kringle” coffee cake, don’t even bother to write down anything at all!
Yes, we had criticisms of the Ritters' embrace of the heresy of Father Leonard Feeney [That’s a lie; see comment 1] and we were disappointed that they had referred to us as "heretics" to others because we held to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [This is another lie; the Ritters never called them heretics] that was explicated so very well by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., in Outside the Church There is No Salvation, by Father Martin Stepanich. No matter the disagreements and criticisms, however, we had and have no animus against the Ritters or Bishop Petko, who says that he has his own "opinion" about the Feeney heresy without correcting the doctrinal error of the Ritters. Bishop Petko explained to Father Ramolla while driving to a restaurant in July of 2011 that he had broken off contact with us by saying, "We are working as a team. If you attack one you attack all three." It was this lack of pastoral objectivity that concerned us greatly while we were in Indiana for three months as our souls are just as important to God as those of the Ritters. We had the terrible, sickening feeling in Indiana that we were reliving the experience we had with Bishop Dolan in late-June of 2009. Our pastor was unwilling to meet with us when we had concerns.
Comment: More accusations against Bp. Petko and the Ritters – and false ones at that -- that have absolutely no relevance to the main topic of Droleskey’s diatribe, complete with some “Fr. Stepanich” name-dropping. For the sake of brevity, I won’t comment on Droleskey’s lies about “Feenyism,” etc. That’s the subject of another tome.
Nevertheless, however, we were very delighted to speak with Bishop Petko on Thursday, September 15, 2011, the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, after the opening Mass for Saint Athanasius Seminary. He was very gracious and cordial. It was almost as though the estrangement and other concerns, to be outlined below, during the summer had passed away. We had certainly hoped so, and we very happy to hear of Bishop Petko's forthcoming trip to Yorkshire, England, to ordain a seminarian for the minor orders of Acolyte and Exorcist and to confirm Catholics who assist at Father Bernard G. J. Hall's Saint Thomas More Chapel in York Minister. It was, alas, during that trip to England that problems emerged, confirming the fact that the concerns raised by others prior to Father Hall's ordination were indeed well-founded.
Comment: Well, finally, it seems that Drololeskey is done with “peripherals” and is (we hope) getting around to the main thrust of his article!
Understanding Recent Allegations in Light of Earlier Ones
It was in the summer of 2008 when Father Paul Petko was seeking assistance following his departure from Ryan Scott's Holy Rosary Abbey that we asked Bishop Daniel Dolan to see if we could get Father Petko conditionally ordained as there were questions concerning Scott’s command of Latin, although none of us knew anything at that time that there was no record of Scott’s ever having been baptized, meaning that he was never ordained to the priesthood by Bishop McKenna and never consecrated to the episcopate by Bishop Slupski
Bishop Dolan considered our request. He asked Father Anthony Cekada to get some background information about Father Petko. His Excellency reported that Father Cekada had telephoned a seminarian (now a presbyter) for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter he knew at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. The seminarian, Jonathan Romanowski, whom we met in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Mukwongao, Wisconsin, in August of 2005, came back with the following main points, which will be listed along with my own explanatory comments:
1) There were reports on an “inappropriate relationship” with a minor while he was at Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis.
Father Arnaud Devillers, who was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre but left to help found the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter after the Archbishop’s June 30, 1988, episcopal consecrations, told me in a telephone conversation on Monday, October 31, 2011, that the minor was none other than [a son of the Ritter's], who Petko would, in violation of the firm policy of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, take on unchaperoned trips with him even though he, Petko, had been warned repeatedly by Devillers not to do so. Father Devillers told me that he had tried over and over and over again to “get through to Petko. It was as though, he told, he was talking to that proverbial brick wall.
Comment: Appearances, appearances, appearances! That’s what pharisaic hypocrites always “sweat”!! The Ritters’ son will SWEAR in any court of law that NO “inappropriate behavior” ever took place. Shame on you for your insinuation, Dr. D!!!
2) There was, of course, the question of the bad judgment that Father Petko had shown in associating with Ryan Scott even though all of this information was publicly available. There was a question as to why he would so such a thing.
Comment: Here we go again with the “Ryan Scott” thing! Enough said!
The Ritters had explained to us in 2007 that “There’s lot of information on the internet. You can’t believe everything you read.” What about accepting the word of people one considered to be their friends? Ah, yes, we were the “heretics.” What we had to say was discounted because of that. Scott, after all, believed in the same false teaching as they did.
Comment: What are you saying here, Dr. D; sounds a little ambiguous (not to mention irrelevant!).
3) Bishop Dolan also mentioned something that I had first learned from a layman who wrote to me in 2005. Bishop Dolan told me in the summer of 2009 that Jonathan Romanowski had told Father Cekada that a copy of Playboy magazine with the name of “Father Paul Petko” on a printed address label had been forwarded to the chancery office in Indianapolis after Petko had left Australia in November of 1999 following a two month stay there.
Comment: Hearsay. And, coming from Dolan and Cekada, I’d give it about as much credence as I would to Satan. This is a really cheap shot, Dr. D!!! How low can you get?
Bishop Dolan told me in July of 2008 that that he would have to get to know Petko, that any priest he conditionally ordains would be “mine, he would belong to me,” crossing his chest with his arms so as to indicate that would have full "authority" over men he ordained. It was up to Petko to go see Dolan in Ohio, something that Petko never did.
Comment: What’s your point here, Dr. D?
We visited with the Ritters and Father Petko a few days later, that is, in July of 2008. I asked him about the allegations.
Petko said that the “minor” was Mrs. Ritter, which is the same story that I got for nearly two hours on Friday, April 29, 2011, when I was trying to ascertain the truth of those and other allegations that had been made against Petko prior to his ordination of Father Bernard G. J. Hall. He said that Bishop Dolan was a “crook”, and that he was not concerned what he had to say. Well, Bishop Dolan was only relating what Father Cekada had been told by Jonathan Romanowski.
Comment: Well, Bp. Dolan IS a crook! (He’s also a liar). Also, it is immaterial whether the “minor” in Dr. D’s query was Mrs. Ritter or her son; BOTH will testify that nothing “untoward” happened between either of them and Bp. Petko. Again, Dr. D, what’s your point?
Petko was very evasive when asked about the Playboy magazine. He muttered and stammered a bit before, saying, “I, I, don’t have any idea how that could have happened.” He told a slightly different story on April 29, 2011. He again denied knowing how that magazine could have gotten to him with his name on it, suggesting that Father John Rizzo, a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter who had been with the Society of Saint Pius X, “was inclined in that direction,” inferring that Father Rizzo took out a subscription in Petko’s name.
Comment: If confronted with the same, I (or ANYONE) would stutter and stammer! How does one answer an allegation like that??!!
I just let this slide at the time. As far as we knew at the time, Ryan Scott, although a con man and cult leader, was a valid bishop, meaning that Father Petko had been conditionally ordained validly. The unanswered questions remained problematic. However, we liked the Ritters. We liked Father Petko. My concern for him was that he would never be able to function much beyond the Ritter property because of his association with Ryan Scott, which I did not know took place because he was very disappointed over the decision of the young son of the Ritters to get married, something that he told Seminarian A while in England in last month, which is affirmed also by the former seminarian. Thus it was my belief at the time that Father Petko, should at least talk to a Bishop Dolan or a Bishop Pivarunas to explain his situation. Little did I know at the time the real reason behind Petko’s decision to associate with Ryan Scott, something that makes the matter even worse as it was, according to what Seminarian A relates that he was told by him directly, a means of escape for him after the decision of the Ritter son to start dating in order to get married.
Comment: Huh?! The initial sentence of the paragraph, “I just let this slide at the time” – to what does this refer? The (alleged) Playboy magazine? Besides the fact that what you’ve just said is hearsay, none of what you state “fits together.” What on God’s earth are you trying to say here?! And how many more times are you going to dig up “Ryan Scott”?!!
Thunderstorms Prior to Father Hall's Ordination
Ironically, it was the efforts made by Bishop Dolan, working through Father Anthony Cekada, that revived the old allegations even though His Excellency had tendered an offer, made through the intercession of wealthy parishioner of Saint Gertrude the Great Church, to travel to Indiana in the summer of 2010 to conditionally ordain Father Petko, sight unseen, an offer that was made, evidently, to forestall any possibility of Petko's working with Father Ramolla. Dolan knew that we were close to Petko. This was, we believed, an effort to take a possible ally way from Father Ramolla while at the same time driving a wedge between the Ritters and us.
The revival of old allegations, accompanied by ones that I had never heard of before, came in an e-mail sent by a layman who is a friend of Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada. It took relatively no effort on my part to confirm from Father Christian Kappes that the letter of his thus circulated was addressed to Father Cekada as the effort by the layman had "Eddie Haskell 999's" fingerprints all over it. And it was with that in mind that the allegations, although taken very, very seriously, came with a a heavy presumption of suspicion. It was my duty, however, to ascertain the facts of the matter, and my efforts in this regard were not entirely satisfactory.
It was on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, that the layman, who lives in Davenport, Iowa, sent his e-mail to Father Markus Ramolla and to several lay people who assisted at Holy Mass at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church. The e-mail contained a letter from a Father Christian Kappes of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis that detailed serious accusations against Bishop Petko.
Here is Father Kappes’ letter that the layman sent out to various people:
I can tell you things that are commonly known so as to prevent anyone from having an idea that he is fit for public ministry, so as to protect the faithful.
1.) He was assigned to Holy Rosary under Msgr. Joseph Schaedel. Msgr. has supported the TLM from its inception in Indy until the present day where it is celebrated 2x per day at Holy Rosary. He has no problem with the liturgical aspect of the old rite. a.) He did have a problem with Fr. Petko physically rollerskating in the Church of Holy Rosary [This did not happen – another Droleskey lie, and an outlandish one at that!]. It sounds incredible, but the man is not dealing with a full deck of cards. b.) There are also questions of a relationship of impropriety with a minor that should be directed to Msgr. Schaedel. I will not pretend to tell you if the accusations and investigation led to an official conclusion. [You will not pretend, because what you say here is nonsense, and another lie] c.) He was forbidden to practice ministry in the Archdiocese [No, he was NOT forbidden; he was simply reassigned] because he abandoned his canonical residence in the Cathedral [He never at any time lived in the cathedral residence, so this is irrelevant and false] and moved in a private family home, the same of the young lady in question. My understanding is that he still resides there [He moved there after he left the FSSP]. He refused to move to a canonical residence, thus resulting in his situation of leaving the FSSP and ArchIndy. d.) Fr. Christ Crotty (Fathers of Mercy, KY) introduced a penal suit against the young Lady (he told me personally) of the same family in Louisville, for desecrating the Blessed Sacrament (sexually) during Mass. Fr. Petko was questioned directly by Crotty, claimed to have been aware of the incident and had not sought canonical means or official means to correct the horrific situation. [This last passage is a masterpiece of misrepresentation and good old-fashioned lying. Droleskey insinuates that the “young lady in question” moved into the same house as Bp. Petko; this is a bald faced lie. Bp. Petko does not know the girl. Furthermore, he has never spoken to Fr. Crotty, nor does he even know him. Bp. Petko knows nothing of any “penal suit” (against the young lady?) nor has he ever been to Mass in Kentucky]. This should give you the people to contact who have the objective records in this matter.
In Christ, fr. Kappes [sic!]
Leaving aside Kappes’ contention about Monsignor Schaedel’s being a friend of Tradition when he is no such thing (and the Ritters and Bishop Petko are absolutely correct about that, something that I documented in As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part three, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part four and Peeking into the Old Conciliar Fowler's Lair, part two), the accusations against Bishop Petko were very serious. Having recommended Bishop Petko to Father Ramolla, I had the obligation to investigate these allegations as best as I was able even though Monsignor Schaedel and Father Christopher had not to this very day responded to the numerous messages and e-mails that I have sent to them to give them the opportunity to verify the information in the Kappes letter. [Did you really expect them to answer your e-mails, you arrogant scumbag??!]
Comment: To sum up: more hearsay, and coming from people who had an axe to grind with both Ramolla and Petko (Dolan and Cekada) and from those who had an agenda against traditionalism in general (Schaedel and Kappes). The fact that some of them became political bedfellows is neither here nor there. The bottom line is that the accusations are both outlandish and non-confirmable hearsay.
I had, prior to this time, prepared a series of interview questions for Bishop Petko to answer so that I could post them on my website to introduce him to a larger audience as nothing much was known about him. Work on that project had to be interrupted, in order to ascertain the truth of these accusations.
Mr. Gary Ritter explained to me in a telephone call on Thursday, April 28, 2011, that not “everything is fabricated” in the Kappes letter. This heightened my anxiety quite a bit. “What’s going on here?” I asked Gary. He said that he would take off from work the next day to meet with me at their house to discuss the matter. He made it clear, however, that they did not want the matter to proceed with a public response and that they were deathly afraid of Monsignor Joseph A. Schaedel, who until recently had been the vicar general of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, effectively running the archdiocese for the now retired “Archbishop” Daniel Buechlein, O.S.B.
Comment: Droleskey is lying here. Gary Ritter did NOT say “not ‘everything is fabricated.’ “ He simply said, “None of this is true.” Droleskey switched the words and played with the positioning of quote marks to give the reader the wrong impression, i.e., he lied. Gary also says that he and his wife are NOT “deathly afraid” of Schaedel; that’s another lie. They simply did not want to needlessly attack him [Schaedel] and the Archdiocese, stirring up undue trouble upon themselves. Lastly, what on God’s earth does all this have to do “with the price of eggs” anyway?! You’re off on another tangent, Dr. D!!
The meeting that took place at the Ritter home in Lizton, Indiana, on Friday morning, April 29, 2011, the Feast of Saint Catherine of Siena, will be forever etched in my memory. I had a very, very bad feeling after the meeting was over that I had been deceived, although I was not sure. Without any evidence to the contrary of what I was told by the Ritters and Bishop Petko that day, I accepted what they said and related the news to Father Ramolla thereafter.
Comment: His “bad feeling” was brought on because of his being unable to dictate to the Ritters how to run O.L.G.R.
The meeting consisted principally of Mrs. Kathleen Ritter’s giving a monologue about the history of the family’s involvement with the Latin Mass prior to meeting Father Petko and their dealings with Monsignor Schaedel. As just noted above, I have every reason to believe that on these points the Ritters were telling the absolute truth. Schaedel did try to convince Mrs. Ritter, who was the chief catechist for the “Tridentine Latin Mass Community” at Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis in 1997, to have the community’s children confirmed in the invalid Novus Ordo rite by Buechlein at the RCA Dome downtown. Mrs. Ritter stood her ground, saying that the archdiocese had promised the children that they would be confirmed in the traditional rite. She also stood her ground with respect to efforts to replace their orthodox texts with those used by the archdiocese. She did this with great courage and with love of the Holy Faith.
Monsignor Joseph Schaedel prided himself on being “open” to the “Tridentine Mass” even though he “preferred” the Novus Ordo. He even pried both of Father Petko’s successors at Holy Rosary Church (Father Dennis Duvelius and Father Michael Magiera) out of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter to join the Archdiocese of Indianapolis so that they could offer “both forms of the ‘one’ Roman Rite” (the hideous Novus Ordo and the 1962 version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition). Schaedel did not like the fact that the then Father Petko was opposed to the Novus Ordo, refusing most steadfastly to have anything to do with it.
All well and good. The problem, you see, was no one there (Gary Ritter, Kathleen Ritter, Bishop Petko) answered two of the specific charges in the Father Kappes letter very directly or clearly. Those two concerned the "impropriety of a relationship with a minor" and the allegations attributed by Kappes to Father Christopher Crotty of the Fathers of Mercy.
Comment: Why should they answer such RIDICULOUS charges? And how would one refute them? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT the accused. And, as stated before, the accusers are people with an “agenda.” As it turnsd out, the Ritters know no more about these allegations than Droleskey or his bionic wife does. The Droleskeys are simply GOSSIP HOUNDS who get mad when they don’t get the information that they ask for or seek to “expose.”
The Ritters did explain in detail the then Father Petko’s original housing arrangement when he was assigned to Holy Rosary Church, which they answered very directly (saying that the “Tridentine Latin Mass community” believed it was best for their priest to live in a better neighborhood than where the archdiocese had assigned him to live). It should be pointed out, however, that was not the point made in the Kappes letter to Cekada. Father Kappes was noting the then Father Petko's refusal to take up residence again in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis after his return from Australia in November of 1999.
Comment: Gary Ritter states: Droleskey has everything all wrong. First, it was not called the “Tridentine Latin Mass Community”; it was the TMA (Tridentine Mass Apostolate). It seems that he cannot repeat anything we said correctly. Father Petko at the time lived down the street from the Church in a house the TMA had rented for him. His assignment was changed before he went to Australia, he was not supposed to return to the Archdiocese of Indianapolis; Fr. Kappes had it all wrong.
Whatever the living arrangements were or were not supposed to be, how does any of this reflect on Bp. Petko’s character, or with Droleskey’s main theme of him being some sort of “abuser”? Dr. D, you’re scraping the bottom of every possible barrel, aren’t you, in your attempts to smear Bp. Petko!
As to the roller-skating allegation, Bishop Petko himself denied ever having been on roller-skates, no less that he roller skated inside of Holy Rosary Church. He was less clear, however, as to how Monsignor Schaedel could make such an allegation.
Comment: Such a ridiculous charge doesn’t even merit a response. Anyone in his right mind would not be clear as to how Schaedel would make such a ridiculous remark! Only a vindictive serpent like Droleskey would try to “make something of it”! And even if this horse dung were true, there is no evidence of “predator” behavior in it! Also, Msgr. Schaedel was recently contacted; and he recently stated through the Archdiocese’ chancellor “that there is nothing on Petko.” Where did you fabricate this one, Dr. D??
Kathleen Ritter said that the “minor” with whom Father Petko was alleged to have had an inappropriate relationship at Holy Rosary was no minor at all. It was herself, telling me again what she had said in May of 2004, that she was accused of having an affair with Father Petko because they spent so much time together. She told me that she told the woman that “Yes, I’m having an affair with him. And you want to know what? It’s a three-way affair – Father, my husband, and me.” She said that so as to drive home what she thought was the absurdity of the question, which had been posed by a female parishioner.
However, some parishioners at Holy Rosary Church were gossiping [and so are you, Dr. D!!] about this matter for over a year before Mrs. Ritter was asked about it -- Father Petko’s indiscreet closeness with Mrs. Ritter and with two of her teenaged children (1998). Kathy Ritter was oblivious to any suggestion that she and Father Petko had given rise to the rumors by their closeness.
Comment: Again, Droleskey is sweating “appearances” (as all Pharisees do). If it doesn’t matter to either Mrs. Ritter or her husband, then why is Droleskey worried about it? Gary Ritter adds: “The ‘closeness’ that he is referring to is that she worked in the office.” And Mrs. Ritter adds, “Of course I was oblivious! Why would I think that working in the office would suggest ‘indiscreet closeness’? And, yes, my children where always with me, because we attended daily Mass.”
The interview got to be very problematic, however, when I asked Bishop Petko about that Playboy magazine that was forwarded from Australia to Indianapolis with his name on a subscription label. As he had in 2008 when I questioned him about this matter for the first time, Bishop Petko fumbled. It was on April 29, 2011, that he said the following about this matter: “I don’t know. . . . I know that Father [John] Rizzo was inclined in this regard.” His voice trailed off after that.
Comment: I repeat (because Dr. D has dredged this up again): how does anyone answer such a charge?!
I returned to the roller-skating as it seemed so preposterous to me. Bishop Petko steadfastly denied ever put on a pair of roller skates, no less having skated inside of Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis. “Why would Monsignor Schaedel make this up?” I asked him. Bishop Petko said, “Because he hates me.” It’s a strange charge to have made, and I have tried, as noted before, to reach Schaedel over the past six months without any success whatsoever. (It was not until early this afternoon, Wednesday, November 23, 2011, that the former seminarian interviewed below telephoned me to say that Bishop Petko had told him over the summer that he had recalled the two youngest Ritter children, who I remember playing inside of the rectory one afternoon after noontime Mass at Holy Rosary Church in August of 1999, had been roller skating outside the grounds on the property of Holy Rosary Church. The boy, with whom he was close, roller skated into the sacristy for a moment from the outside. This, Bishop Petko believes, mutated somehow into the tale of his having roller skated inside of the church. The former seminarian said that Seminarian A, whose report is included below, had been told the same thing by Bishop Petko.)
Comment: Okay, then, Dr. D, drop it!! How much more are you going to harp on this?
The Ritters expressed having great fear about Monsignor Schaedel. “Why?” I asked them. “What can he do to you?”
Well, it turns out that they were trying to dig up “dirt” on Schaedel when he was making life difficult for them in 1999. The Ritters said that Schaedel was known for making lewd comments about women, and it was with this in mind that they asked their one of their sons, who is a computer expert, to sneak into Schaedel’s office at Holy Rosary Church and to hack into his computer. The son was able to get into Schaedel’s computer and print out what was reported to me as salacious e-mails. The Ritters knew that this was against the civil law. Their attorney told them to give the material to him, and it remains in his custody. The Ritters are deathly afraid that Schaedel knows about this even though the statute of limitations for prosecuting this crime has passed. Father Petko approved of the break-in and the hacking of Schaedel’s computer. I asked to see those e-mails, being told that they were unsure whether the attorney would release them.
Comment: This one gets two awards: the Bald-faced Lie award, and the Outlandish Claim award: the Ritters’ son breaking into Schaedel’s office and hacking into his computer??!! Which of your bodily orifices was this one generated from, Droloskey? Are you insane? Are you into “tobacco alternatives”? First off, Dr. Dumbloskey, the Ritters do not have any sons who are computer experts. Period. Secondly, the Ritters are something that you aren’t: they’re Catholic. They just don’t do such underhanded things, because they have principles – and consciences.
What possessed your criminal mind to even imagine that they would do such a thing, much less claim that they actually did it – and then claim that Bp. Petko “approved of the break-in”?? Do you realize what you are opening yourself up to, both morally and legally? Your claim is as despicable as it is outlandish. You need to seek mental help – and God’s help. Droleskey, you are absolutely disgusting.
The questioning then turned to the subject of the accusation that a Father Christopher Crotty of the Fathers of Mercy, based in South Union, Kentucky, had spoken with Father Petko concerning what Father Kappes called a “sexual desecration” of what purports to be the Blessed Sacrament by a “minor lady” who lived in the same house with Father Petko. According to the information Father Crotty gave to Father Kappes, a “canonical procedure” was started against this “minor lady,” Father Petko, according to this information, had been informed about the matter, but stated he was going to do nothing about it.
Bishop Petko denied anything about this. “No, I don’t know him. I never heard of him. Who is he?”
I was sick at heart. Gary Ritter had told me the night before that “not all of this is fabricated.” [No, he NEVER said this, you liar! In fact, he knew nothing about it. So why are you so “sick at heart” over something that he knew NOTHING ABOUT?] No one, however, could explain the episode that had been described by Father Crotty. It was very surreal. And Father Crotty is taking refuge under a claim of “confidentiality” when he himself has blabbed about the matter to Father Kappes. Thus it is that I believe that the truth of this matter is not known at this time, and it will have to be established by those in the secular media who have the time and resources that I lack to research the matter.
Comment: As with the Playboy thing, how does one answer such a ridiculous (and bizarre) accusation? I (or anyone) would answer in exactly the same way that Bp. Petko did! Your last sentence states, “Thus it is that I believe that the truth of this matter is not known at this time, and it will have to be established by those in the secular media who have the time and resources that I lack to research the matter.” “…that I lack to dig up more dirt on the matter” would be more appropriate! Dr. D, you disgust me.
As to their closeness with Bishop Petko, Gary Ritter told me that Father Arnaud Devillers took the then Father Petko aside after a barbecue at the Ritter house in August of 1999, telling him, “I’m transferring you. You are too close to this family.” Gary Ritter was indignant, saying, “You’re damn straight he was close to us. Schaedel and [his administrator at Holy Rosary] kept Father Petko isolated from visitors. We were his only friends. We were his family.”
I didn’t say anything at the time. However, I thought to myself as follows: “Father Devillers may be a liberal. However, he is a true priest. That observation about the closeness between the Ritters and the then Father Petko was indeed very accurate.”
As it turns out, however, Father Devillers did not say what Gary Ritter attributed to him. Father Devillers was concerned about Father Petko’s closeness to [a minor son of the Ritters] and the fact that he, Petko, refused to abide by the policies of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter that forbade its priests from traveling with minors without a chaperone. Father Devillers did not say that there was any immoral conduct, only that there was the appearance of impropriety that could give rise to scandal in full violation of the policies of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.
Comment: As Ronald Reagan would say, “Here you go again” – appearances! Any and all of the Ritters will SWEAR in any court that nothing inappropriate ever went on between them (or their son) and Bp. Petko. Give it a rest, Dr. D!!! And, by the way, Bp. Petko did spend time with the Ritters’ son – to teach him how to be a master of ceremonies. Captain Winnebago is scraping the bottom of the barrel here!
I do not know whether Bishop Petko told them about this. I was told by Mr. Ritter that Father Devillers had transferred Father Petko because of his closeness to the family in general. Seminarian A, who is quoted a length below, informed me that Father Petko's closeness to the son continued over the years, resulting in his, Petko's, being very distraught when the son, then grown, had decided to get married, which is the reason he sought refuge at Holy Rosary Abbey under Ryan Scott in Galesburg, Illinois. Seminarian A and the former seminarian have both said that Bishop Petko himself volunteered this information to him last month while in England. What I was told on Friday, April 29, 2011, did not reflect the actual facts concerning the then Father Petko's transfer to Australia in September of 1999.
Comment: More hearsay. More “he said that you said that he said that…”!! Dr. D, you would have come in very handy in Salem, Massachusetts back in the “witch hunt” days!! Also, here you go repeating your same pack of lies about Bp. Petko being distraught over the Ritters’ son’s marriage; he was not distraught; he in fact married the son and his bride. Droleskey mentioned this garbage before. He keeps rewrapping old sets of lies and then re-represents them as “new stuff.”
Although I was very uneasy with the results of the interview [Oh, now we’re back to the “interview” again!], it was still my intention to proceed with the posting of Bishop Petko’s interview as neither Monsignor Schaedel or Father Crotty saw fit to respond to my detailed inquiries. The District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Father Eric Flood, refused to return my request for him to telephone me so that I could question him [and I don’t blame him!]. The only thing that I did not do, and it is something that I regret, is not contacting Father Arnaud Devillers. [He wouldn’t have responded to you either, you presumptuous insect!]
It was after Holy Mass at Our Lady of the Good Remedy in Lizton, Indiana, on Sunday, May 1, 2011, that Bishop Petko approached me as follows: “I don’t mean to sound like Bishop Neville. However, I don’t want this to go any further.”
I was astounded. I had worked very hard on the interview. I had put my own writing on hold for days to get Petko’s interview ready for publication and then to deal with the accusations that had been made against him. It was, as I learned two days later, a “team decision,” that is a decision made by the Ritters and Bishop Petko.
Indeed, Bishop Petko hid from me after Holy Mass on Tuesday, May 3, 2011, retreating to his second floor quarters at the Ritter household [This was normal; he would always go upstairs to say his prayers after weekday Masses; he only “socialized” with parishioners after Sunday Masses. But the Droleskeys never engaged in such socialization; they instead always wanted to be alone with the bishop]. Gary Ritter told me the following: “This damn stuff has got to stop. We made a decision when Father was consecrated that we weren’t going to be involved in all of this [blasphemous expletive deleted] politics [Someone should explain to Droleskey that when one uses quotation marks, they are supposed to convey exactly what was said – and not be used as an opportunity to twist words into what one wants them to be. Gary Ritter never said any such thing – nor did he use “blasphemous expletive deleted” language]. The more I look at this, the more I realize they’re talking about [name of then minor child omitted], not Kathleen, and we don’t want this to go any further. We have to protect our chapel and Bishop Petko belongs to us.”
I told Gary that he was wrong, that Bishop Petko belonged to the entire Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal. I went on to say the following: “Father Petko should not have accepted episcopal consecration if he was going to spend his episcopal ministry steeped in fears because of allegations about him.” Gary was unmoved. “This is not going any further.” Mr. Ritter was referring to both to about-to-published interview with Bishop Petko and to my desire to question Monsignor Joseph Schaedel, which I proceeded to attempt to do despite his and Bishop Petko's very strong objections [Bp. Petko, as he has said several times, never objected to publishing interviews, only to Droleskey adding vitriolic hearsay designed to stir up trouble].
Comment: The Ritters were certainly opposed to conducting an interview with someone like Schaedel -- as I would also be. Dr. D wanted to do it on their property – “under their auspices,” so to speak. I would object to that as well. Droleskey could have done it somewhere else and/or at another time – but he chose not to. (After all, it’s a free world, Dr. D! Why didn’t you go somewhere else to stir up your dirt?) But it seems that he wanted to create an “incident” with Petko and the Ritters, and this gave him that “opportunity.”
It was “thoughtful” too of Dr. D that he alleged that Gary Ritter used a “blasphemous expletive” in his remarks – again, “nice touch,” you [blasphemous expletive deleted] hypocrite!
Although I believed on Friday, April 29, 2011, that I had not been told the full truth, I was certain of it after speaking to Gary Ritter on Tuesday, May 3, 2011. And Bishop Petko, true to his character in these situations as I was learning, refused to return any phone calls that I left for him.
Comment: Really? If so, so what?! I wouldn’t return your calls either, at this point! Who in the hell do you think you are, that a Bishop “must” return your phone calls, you ego-maniac! Bp. Petko adds: “I didn’t refuse his phone calls; I just got tired of him telling me what to do several times a day, so I only returned his phone calls when I needed to talk to him.
Father Ramolla was very upset by this turn of events. He told me, "It was upon your word that I associated with this man." A heavy burden pressed upon my soul [a soul like yours wouldn’t be burdened by something like that, since you have no conscience]. Father Hall’s ordination was but a day away. Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada were working overtime behind-the-scenes to undermine the ordination. Bishop Petko did not want my interview with him published (an interview that had to be edited several times as he refused to answer several questions, including why he had been sent for a psychological evaluation upon his return to the United States in November of 1999; I know now, of course, that no such request had been made by Father Devillers). The Ritters were afraid if things became [sic] known about them.
Comment: Bp. Petko did not refuse to answer any questions in the interview; and it was Droleskey’s decision to edit out several of them, taking out answers that he did not like. The only things that Bp. Petko did not want published were attacks on others; and he continued to say “keep it about me.” Gary Ritter adds that Bp. Petko has always been open and willing to answer any and all questions asked of him.
Also, Bp. Petko was not sent for a physiological evaluation upon returning to the U.S.A., nor at any other time. Droleskey first chides Bp. Petko for refusing to answer “why he had been sent for a psychological evaluation” in one sentence, and then in the next states, “I know now, of course, that no such request had been made by Father Devillers.” Droleskey, are you a moron, or were you up too late at night when you wrote this?
Father Ramolla, who is very forceful and a firm defender of truth [What a laugh! Got any more sick humor, Dr. D??!!], convinced Bishop Petko to proceed with the interview so that the general public could have an idea of his background. I hoped that my fears about all of the unanswered questions and doubts were misplaced. It was wishful thinking. It was wrong.
I finally caught up with Bishop Petko on Tuesday evening, May 3, 2011, as he left the hotel where he was staying (we were staying in the same hotel in West Chester, Ohio). I told him of my frustration with having been told one thing about the accusations [what accusations, Dr. D??] four days before and another earlier that morning. “Yeah, that was news to me,” he said with a smile. “That’s the first I heard about it, too.” As soon as he said that, the Ritters came out of the hotel door.
Did I do enough at the time to investigate the matter further? As events have turned out, no, I did not. Father Hall's ordination was approaching. He was due to leave this country on May 15, 2011, because of the deportation case that had been brought against him by Father Cekada (see Stalinists Always Claim to Want Peace). I saw the surfacing of the allegations at the last minute before that ordination to be an effort to thwart it from taking place [True]. Although I reported to Father Hall that I could not find any allegations of "impropriety" with a minor as I took Mrs. Ritter's word that the "minor" mentioned in Father Kappes' letter was herself, news that he passed on to me by a very fine layman [I know the “fine layman” to whom you refer. He is definitely NOT “fine”!] who has since returned to Saint Gertrude the Great Church. I was very unsettled interiorly by all that had happened. I shared this at the time with my wife, telling her, "Honey, I got stonewalled. I don't think I was told the full truth. I don't know about this. I have a very bad feeling about it all." There was, however, no way that I could prove that my suspicions were correct and, barring hard evidence from those who did not return my phone calls, I could not write publicly about mere suspicions [Why couldn’t you write about “mere suspicions” then, but are now. It seems that you have no trouble fabricating “proof” now!].
Yes, I was wrong for not trying to do more. Very wrong. I was wrong for seeking to minimize my doubts so as not to interfere with Father Hall's ordination. Very wrong. Those who were seeking to warn me about Bishop Petko, including the layman from Iowa and Father Michael Magiera of Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, were very correct. I just did not want to believe them at that time. They were correct. I was wrong.
Comment: The “fine layman” to whom Droleskey refers was, in fact, at odds with Fr. Ramolla – so much so that he resigned from SAG’s board, and after that, subsequently drastically reduced his contribution to SAG. He was looking for a “technicality” to justify his leaving SAG, and the “Petko” allegations provided just that pretext.
Droleskey stated, “I was wrong,” and claimed that Fr. Michael Magiera et al were “very correct” – about allegations which he has yet to this day to prove – great logic, dummkopf! Fr. Magiera, by the way, did NOT seek to warn Droleskey; Droleskey contacted him, when he wouldn’t verify or negate anything, and refused to contact Bp. Petko himself (whereupon Droleskey then also attacked Fr, Magiera for “not cooperating”].
A Foreshadowing of Future Problems
It was during late-July of this year that I began to be very alarmed by the fact that Bishop Paul Petko had made a visit to a former seminarian whom he had met in March of 2011 when visiting Father Ramolla to discuss plans for the Reverend Mister Bernard Hall's diaconal ordination. The former seminarian lived at the time in a trailer owned by a parishioner of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church who lives close to his work in another city during the week, having given over the use of his trailer to Saint Athanasius Seminary.
Although two seminarians from Europe were staying in the trailer owned by a parishioner of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church in our own mobile home community, Bishop Petko had come over in late-July to visit only the former seminarian, who had visited with Bishop Petko and the Ritters in Indiana at the beginning of June of 2011 and then again in the middle of July. Bishop Petko stayed for five straight days in that trailer, spending much of his time watching videos with the former seminarian. He did not let Father Ramolla, who could always use extra help in the parish, know that he was coming to town or that it was in fact he was in town. Father Ramolla only heard about this in a telephone conversation with Seminarian B, who was then over six thousand miles away from Fairfield, Ohio. Bishop Petko did not offer Holy Mass on a regular basis during the four full days of his visit to the former seminarian, doing so once privately, on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, and on Friday evening, July 29, 2011, as Father Ramolla was not feeling well after a very trying week of giving conferences for the girls summer camp (Sunday, July 24, 2011 to Wednesday, July 27, 2011) and the boys summer camp (Wednesday, July 27, 2011, to Saturday, July 30, 2011).
Father Ramolla was concerned about several things. So was I: (a) The bad example that Bishop Petko was giving the seminarians by his refusal [“refusal”?] to offer Holy Mass every day while he was away from Indiana even though he could have done so at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church, which is just five miles away from the trailer; (b) that Bishop Petko was oblivious to the appearance of scandal that he was causing by his spending entire days with a young man; (c) that Bishop Petko would waste his time watching videos when he could have been taking the young man out to do apostolic work, such as visiting the sick in hospitals [Why don’t you spend more time visiting the sick, Dr. D, instead of writing your poison?!], that is so vitally needed in a world so devoid of true Catholic priests to invite someone back to the Faith and to give them the true Sacraments before they die (or going out to the summer camp to visit the children).
Comment: One thought keeps going through my mind when I hear Dr. D voice his concern for “visiting the sick” and doing “apostolic work”: “I think I’m going to throw up!” How many times have you visited the sick, Dr. D? How I wish you could spend one tenth the time doing this than you do writing your poison!
And does Bp. Petko report to Fr. Ramolla? Is Fr. Ramolla his boss? Does Bp. Petko have to clear his “agenda” with Ramolla when he’s in town? First of all, Bp. Petko did not refuse to say Mass; that is a lie. Secondly, it was Fr. Ramolla who recommended that he visit the “young man” -- and it is not scandalous to spend time with a man to discern a vocation. Also, Dr. D., you are not a priest; it is none of your business how Bp. Petko or any priest conducts his apostolic work. Lastly, the “movies” that Bp. Petko was watching were The Cardinal, by Otto Preminger; a National Geographic special entitled Inside the Vatican, narrated by Martin Sheen; and a video on Evolution that Gerry Keaveney wanted us to watch -- and watch with us (Keaveney is one of the SAG parishioners who is currently “calling for Bp. Petko’s head” right now). A bit of a conflict of interest, isn’t this, Gerry?
I asked Father Ramolla if I should contact a senior official in the Society of Saint Pius X to ask why Paul Petko was never advanced to the priesthood in the Society of Saint Pius X. [Why did you ask Fr. Ramolla’s “permission,” and what bearing or relevance does this have on what follows?] I wrote to this senior official, who telephoned me from abroad on Friday, August 3, 2011. He was most forthcoming. This is what he told me:
(a) There was the belief in the Society that Paul Petko was using the Society to be ordained to the priesthood, that he did not have a deep understanding of or an abiding commitment to the Tradition of the Church or to the mission of the Society to oppose Modernism;
(b) The senior official in the Society of Saint Pius X said Paul Petko seemed to have more of an attraction to the accoutrements of clerical vestments and garb rather than to the priesthood itself;
c) It was the general belief within the Society that Paul Petko was too “soft,” perhaps a bit on the effeminate side and thus not tough enough to be a Society priest and firmly denounce error and oppose it with knowledge and conviction.
Father Ramolla was in a bind. Bishop Petko’s obliviousness to the appearance of scandal that he was giving (going on long drives with Kathleen Ritter, accompanying her to the stores [Oh, how dastardly!!] and dining with her alone at restaurants [It strikes me that an “effeminate” man wouldn’t do such a thing!], going to a seminar on one occasion to decide if they wanted to take classes in beekeeping, visiting with the former seminarian for days on end without offering Holy Mass, thus denying glory to God and grace to the world at a time [Dr. D, you deny those things just by your very existence!] when there is a paucity of Sanctifying and Actual Grace) was very bad [You forgot to mention that Bp. Petko can’t dance, has bad breath, and doesn’t clean out his “belly-button lint every day, too!]. Father Ramolla knew that the only ultimate answer was for him to seek episcopal consecration at some point even though he had told Bishop Francis Slupski in March and July of this year that he could not do so at that time.
Father Ramolla was concerned about the reaction of his faithful to such a consecration after they had been through so much turmoil in less than two years. Recognizing that my unease from three months before was not unfounded, I urged him to be consecrated, explaining that he must not make compromises of the sort that his association with Bishop Petko required. Father Ramolla's principal adviser at that time told me that this had to wait, that it was necessary to "hold our noses" for the time being and deal with Petko.
Comment: Aha! Now the pieces of the puzzle fall into place: Fr. Ramolla wants to be Bishop; therefore, we must trump up some charges against Bp. Petko to “get him out of the way”!! From the above, it sounds like the scheme to get rid of Bp. Petko was already in place before the alleged “inappropriate behavior” by Bp. Petko even happened!
Father Ramolla did insist with Bishop Petko that he could not stay in the trailer with Mrs. Ritter so that they could have a free place to sleep while in the Cincinnati area for a talk given by a homeopathic specialist from North Carolina. Father Ramolla said that he could not countenance this. Bishop Petko changed his plans. Father Ramolla also said that Petko would be gone in an instant if he did anything that could be construed as displaying homosexual intentions towards one of this [sic] seminarians.
Comment: Nothing here hints of “homosexual intentions” – just the opposite: worries about “hanky-panky” with Mrs. Ritter! Why would Fr. Ramolla on the one hand be worried about Bp. Petko being in the same trailer with Mrs. Ritter, and then in the next breath be warning Bp. Petko about “anything that could be construed as displaying homosexual intentions towards one of this [sic] seminarians”? This sounds like illogical nonsense to me.
Droleskey also fails to mention that the travel plans were discussed while Mrs. Ritter and Bp. Petko were still at their home in Indiana, before the planned travel to Cincinnati. Mrs. Ritter’s plan was to sleep in the trailer’s master bedroom (the “trailer” belonging to Gerry Keaveney, where Joseph Minges lives), with Bp. Petko sleeping on the living room couch, and Joseph Minges in another bedroom. This was thought a good plan, in fact, by Joseph; it was a lot cheaper than having Mrs. Ritter being put up at a hotel by herself (she does not like staying alone at a hotel all by herself).
Fr. Ramolla, however, said that there were “some SGG people” living down the street from Gerry’s trailer; and they might “get the wrong idea” if they saw Bp. Petko and Mrs. Ritter alighting from the same trailer. Upon hearing this new information, Bp. Petko agreed. Therefore, it was decided that Mrs. Ritter remain in Indiana, and that only Bp. Petko travel to Cincinnati, which he did. Droleskey makes it sound like Bp. Petko wanted “to be alone in the trailer with Mrs. Ritter” when in fact Joseph was there the whole time. Droleskey’s willful misrepresentation of the facts here is truly despicable.
None of us knew at the time what actually happened. The answers to questions posed to the former seminarian by this writer [Oh, now we’re “off” Mrs. Ritter and back to “seminarians” again!] after the incidents with Seminarian A become known details the fact that, although we had no proof at the time, Petko's giving the appearance of scandal by visiting with this former seminarian and spending so much time alone with him was actually much worse than that:
Q: When did you first meet Bishop Paul Petko?
A: I believe I first met Bp. Petko at the beginning of March this year when he visited Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church in Fairfield, Ohio.
Q: What was your impression of him at the time?
A: Fr. Ramolla told me that Petko had a very good first impression of me. However, I kept from Father that I did not have a good impression of Petko.
Q: When did you next see Bishop Petko?
A: Soon after his conditional ordination and his consecration to the episcopacy.
Q: What struck you at first about Bishop Petko:
A: Something seemed to be creepy/weird about him [Funny, Joseph, he never struck me that way; but you, on the other hand, strike me as being someone weird – not to mention effeminate – yourself]. But for me such impressions are not to be used in judging every person in every situation, for one could be wrong about someone by solely judging on first impressions, unless there is a good reason to do so. From the beginning Petko took a strong liking to me and was very kind and generous to me, and expressed how he would like to help me in finding my vocation.
Q: Bishop Petko began visiting you this summer in the mobile home where you had been residing for some time. Is this correct?
Q: How many visits did he make to you?
A: One specifically to me that I can recall. All other visits that I had with him were at the Ritter's house in which he paid for my gas.
Q: You visited Bishop Petko several times in Lizton, Indiana. Please briefly describe these visits and how you spent your time with him during them.
A: We would discuss matters of the faith, the situation of the Church, sedevacantism, thoughts on pastoral matters, history, cars, his experiences in the Novus Ordo church, the Society of Saint Pius X, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Ryan St. Anne and Bishop Slupski. He also told me that he was very, very close to [a young son of the Ritters], whom he met [and, as stated before, trained as a Master of Ceremonies. How many times are you going to repeat this, Droleskey?!] when he was under the age of eighteen, and how he deeply misses him [as does his family, because he and his wife now livw out-of-state. What are you trying to imply here, dirtbag?]. He told me that I reminded him very much and was very similar to [that now grown young man].
Q: Please describe the physical advances and other gestures or invitations that you believed were inappropriate and/or made you feel uncomfortable and what you think is relevant. [Talk about a loaded, leading question! What caused you to preemptively ask such a thing?!]
A: How he would sit absolutely beside you and have you lie your head on his chest, the prolonged hugs that lasted for minutes (and I truly mean minutes, the Ritter son to whom Petko was close] once said in a nice sarcastic way: after 20min you should stop) while saying: "I love you son, I love you," which was climaxed by a couple of kisses in the neck. The worst was when he was giving me a long hug he asked if we could move away from the window so that no one would get a wrong impression. At some point there after he reached down and squeezed my fanny a few times [“nice touch,” Joseph; that always convinces the “studio audience”!!]. Though more than just awkward, I regret I overlooked it . [“Overlooked it”? Get serious, son! Who would “overlook” such a thing??!!]
Q: It is my understanding that you were invited by Bishop Petko to spend a night at a nearby hotel with him. Is this correct?
A: Yes, because at that time I was unable to have a warm shower, so he offered me to come over for a shower and sleep the night there with him; he said there was an extra bed in his room. At least at that point I should have concluded the obvious, since I turned down the offer because of its impropriety. improperness of it. A womanizer is most likely not going to say to a woman: let's have illegitimate relations tonight. Rather, he would say: would you like to stay over and sleep at my abode tonight.
Q: Did you say anything about this to others? If not, why not?
A: I did not mention anything to others, because I was thinking that since I knew and trusted him, he is not doing evil, but wants to show his kindness to me (I was thinking in terms of the intention and not the gift, for the gift - hugs and kisses - became more than awkward to me), but if another were to do those things, I would be seriously concerned. Now I realize that I was grossly wrong and that I was taken advantage of.
Q: Did you ever think he could be a predator?
A: Yes. At times I would be a bit nervous especially at night. But I thought that I was making a rash judgment or that I should not think of such things. And if he is a danger to others, I would find out first; since, he spent more time with me than any one else. And if so, I could easily out muscle him, if he made such a direct demand on me. [So why then did you plan to spend Thanksgiving at the Ritters’ house? And why did you habitually arrange your work schedule to maximize visiting time at their house?]
Q: When did you first discuss your own experiences with others?
A: When certain individuals were concerned whether or not Fr. Ramolla had done the right thing in dismissing Bp. Petko and in the manner in which he did it. [Gee, what a coincidence!!]
Q: What prompted you to do so?
A: Before God, I felt obliged regardless of the shame it would cause me, and the deep hurt it would have on my dear friends and family. My father raised all his children to be men of truth and seekers of truth regardless of the consequences. [Yeah, and before God, you waited until then to decide to start changing your story, which you had told very differently before. I think that “before God,” you are perjuring yourself!].
Q: What were you told by a seminarian in Europe who had similar experiences? Please be as specific as you can.
A: He told me everything that had happened with him regarding Bishop Petko (the events, circumstances and so forth which was basically identical to what Petko did with me save the fanny squeezing) and asked me: is this normal behavior? "Do you think he is what his actions conclude he is?" I told him I would have to think about it first. After one or two days of prayerful [“prayerful” – nice touch again! – good “traddie” word!] thought, I concluded the obvious and realized that I was mistaken in how I had gone about everything with Bishop Petko.
Comment: Here again, he repeats the “fanny squeezing” lie. Does Joseph Minges, a 28yr old man, need to ask if a man squeezing his fanny is normal behavior?!! When asked about this, Bp. Petko simply replied, “This did not happen!” Also, why was Joseph planning to visit and stay overnight (on Thanksgiving) with Bp. Petko and the Ritters? (Only after Droleskey “got to him” and advised him not to go, did Joseph cancel out on his plans to visit them).
Q: Is there anything you would like to add to what you have said?
A: Yes. I accept this as a learning experience that God allowed me to go through. In my short lifetime, I have only encountered two different obvious types of these kind of people; I never encountered one that was this smooth/deceitful an operator. The only hurt in my heart is the sorrow that my dear friends or family will have because of all this; nevertheless, I was obliged to speak up for the good of souls and come what may.
Comment: Puke, barf, wretch! Joseph, who do you think is going to believe this sort of drivel? Given the number of times that you have changed your story, you’d be chopped up into mincemeat under cross-examination! By the way, who wrote your script for you – Droleskey? And how many times did you rehearse it? Your nice little touch about the “fanny squeeze” to give your story more “believability”: the problem here is that for anyone to accept such a “gesture” and still continue a relationship is NOT believable! You gilded the lily a little too much this time! Too much embellishment, Dr. D!!!
The fact that your brother (Paul) is an integral part of SAG’s choir (and therefore has a vested interest in staying on Fr. Ramolla’s “good side”) represents a bit of a “conflict of interest” too. Before Fr. Ramolla’s “raving lunatic” tirade against Bp. Petko, you, Joseph, told Janet Gaye and others that Bp. Petko did nothing wrong. Then you changed your story. It also occurs to me that you tolerated Bp. Petko’s “offensive” behavior for months, with NO COMPLAINTS, before Droleskey showed up. It was only after he came on the scene that it suddenly became a “problem.” Joseph, you will be pulverized if you ever get cross-examined on this!
One more thing, Joseph: Both you and Florent intimated that the Ritter’s son Christopher was “abused” when he was younger (where did you get that lie?). Christopher not only vehemently denied this, but he tried calling you five times to address and refute those lies. So far, both you and Florent have refused to answer his calls. When are you going to get back to him? Do you need to “rehearse your lines” some more before getting back to him?
Paul Petko was engaged in what is called "homosexual grooming." He targeted sensitive, vulnerable young men who had had difficulties in the pursuit of their priestly vocations, using their emotional vulnerability to offer "affection" for them as he told them how much he "loved" them. I am sorry, my readers, this is sick and it is disgusting and anyone who can defend this as "natural" or "normal" or "no big deal" is lacking any of the sensus Catholicus concerning the horror of personal sin is oblivious that a priest, no less one who possesses the fullness of the priesthood on his immortal soul, who acts in this way is unfit for any kind ministry in the Catholic Church.
Comment: Dr. D, it is you who are disgusting. You have pronounced “guilt” on a man, without even giving him the chance to face his accusers (he’s even been barred from the SAG property). You deny him that right – a right guaranteed by our Constitution (but not by you). You and Fr. Ramolla refuse even to hear him; then you openly slander him on a PUBLIC website. My God! What kind of a monster are you?!!
Mrs. Randy Engel described the process of "grooming" as follows in Chapter 8 of her book, The Rite of Sodomy:
Grooming is a complex process used by pedophiles and pederasts to gain access to and secure their victims and to decrease the likelihood of discovery by parents and police. Through the process of grooming the pederast gains the child’s trust, breaks down his defenses and inhibitions, manipulates him into sexual activity, and secures a promise of secrecy that seals the sexual bargain.
According to psychologist Anna C. Salter, “The establishment (and eventual betrayal) of affection and trust occupies a central role in the child molester's interactions with children. ...The grooming process often seems similar from offender to offender, largely because it takes little to discover that emotional seduction is the most effective way to manipulate children.”
In the Sandfort study, in all cases, it was the pederast who introduced sex into the relationship. None of the boys had either the knowledge or the experience to initiate what were essentially advanced homosexual techniques. Some were introduced to homosexual acts by viewing male pornography. Over a period of time, some became proficient enough to take an active role in the homosexual encounters. A small number of boys permitted oral-anal contact (rimming). Among the least desirable sex acts engaged in by the boys were sodomy and ingesting ejaculate during oral sex. Not surprisingly, the pederast got “better sex” from older boys than the younger ones who were genitally immature and sexually passive. Sandfort quoted Brongersma (1975) that an important element in the satisfaction that a pederast experiences is derived from the lust which the boy experiences after being initiated into homosex, that is, the pedophile/pederast gets pleasure in corrupting a virgin.
A number of boys in the Sandfort study said that the element of secrecy in their sexual pact with the pederast contributed to fear and anxiety they experienced over possible exposure of their activities to their parents or police authorities. And Sandfort himself admitted, that most parents would react with horror if they knew their child or children were involved in such a thing.
It appears that most of the boys Sandfort interviewed seemed to be unaware of the degree to which they had been sexually and emotionally manipulated by the adult sexual predators. Almost all described their association with the pedophile/pederast in positive terms, i.e., “friendship,” and “companionship. ” They also indicated that they were attracted to the pederast because he permitted them to indulge in freedoms like smoking and drinking that their parents would not permit. Nevertheless, a few of the older boys who had developed normal heterosexual relations with girls were able to distinguish between “sex” with the pederast and the “love” that they felt for their girl friends.
What applies to children applies as well to young men who have maintained their purity intact, especially those men whom predators seem with almost preternatural sense about them to be emotionally vulnerable. The goal in this "grooming" is to create ambivalence of emotions within the soul of the victim so that he, the victim, will think that he is being "loved" and given "attention" when the fact of the matter is that he is being emotionally manipulated to be a toy in the control of the "groomer." And this strategy was employed with great assiduousness, as we know now, by Bishop Paul Petko as a cloak for terrible, twisted acts that have deeply wounded the souls of three young men and about which he has shown not even a trace of remorse.
Comment: All of the foregoing excerpted from Engel’s book The Rite of Sodomy is just that: her book. You then infer that it applies to Bp. Petko – more inference; more insinuation; more hearsay – more verbiage to pass off as “evidence” or “fact.” Dr. D, pray tell me, again, how does behavior that, even interpreted in its worst light, doesn’t even qualify as a misdemeanor – how does this get escalated to the status of “terrible, twisted acts that have deeply wounded the souls of three young men”? Which lunatic-asylum inmate gave you this revelation?
The Storm Breaks in England
Unaware of what had happened in July at the trailer where the former seminarian lived, it appeared as though everything was going fairly smoothly with respect to Bishop Petko's association with Saint Athanasius Seminary, an association that was informal, involving no contract, having been arranged between himself and Father Ramolla, who is the founder and rector of the seminary. The seminarians had gone to Saint Athanasius Seminary because of Father Ramolla. While they were grateful to have a bishop in association with the seminary, the seminarians admired Father Ramolla's solid defense of the Faith and his vast knowledge [“Vast knowledge”?!!!] of the Sacred Liturgy and his tireless zeal for souls in his pastoral work.
Comment: Bp. Petko’s knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy puts Fr. Ramolla’s to shame. And Fr. Ramolla’s “zeal for souls”? One “soul” that he apparently has little “zeal” for is Fr. Hall’s: he has let Fr. Hall languish over in England – without pay and without help on his immigration visa. Ramolla didn’t even INITIATE Fr. Hall’s visa for over three months, over repeated complaints from St. Albert’s board members. And after he did initiate it, he ignored it (as well as ignoring to pay Fr. Hall his board-approved salary). In the end, Fr. Ramolla wrongfully accused Fr. Hall of collaborating with Bp. Petko and in fact dismissed Fr. Hall from SAG. All of the foregoing doesn’t sound like “zeal for souls in his pastoral work” to me! (By the way, everything I’ve stated can be proved with documented, hard evidence, which can be presented in a court of law. All that Droleskey has is only unsubstantiated hearsay).
Bishop Petko, who was taught and Ascetical and Mystical Theology on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, staying overnight on Tuesday and leaving on Wednesday [this sentence makes no sense!]. He said Mass publicly only several times during his stay, including at Seminarian A's ordination to the minor orders of Acolyte and Exorcist on Friday, October 21, 2011, and then when he administered the Sacrament of Confirmation on Tuesday, October 25, 2011. He forgot to bring his Breviary with him to pray his Divine Office. Father Ramolla expressed his concerns to me when he learned about this from Seminarian A. He was concerned about the poor, slothful witness being given to seminarians by a bishop concerning the dignity of the Holy Priesthood.
Comment: Here we go again! Oh, he forgot to bring his breviary! For shame! For shame! Is there any other aspect of his existence that you want to put under a microscope, Dr. D? First of all, I just don’t BELIEVE this nonsense that you just stated. Secondly, what skeletons would someone find in your closet if he nitpicked you?
And, as it turns out, Droleskey has (once again) lied here. Bp. Petko, in fact, did not forget his Breviary. He had already said his entire Office; and he instructed the seminarians to say it in private, because the Rector (Ramolla) was not there. In his witch hunt, Droleskey not only leaves no stone unturned; he manufactures them!
A change seemed to have come over Father Ramolla on Tuesday, October 25, 2011. He seemed very concerned about some matter. I did not know about what until Wednesday evening, October 26, 2011. I saw him drive past our trailer, not far from where the seminarians live, without even acknowledging me. It was dark. I was not sure that he recognized me. He had. He was preoccupied with something that I knew nothing about, namely, that Seminarian A had been kissed on the neck by Bishop Petko, who invited him also to use a bed in the bedroom at the guest house where they were staying and to use the shower in his room rather than the public shower for the use of guests without showers in their rooms. "It's everything we feared in July," he told me. Sadly, it was.
Comment: This seminarian was Florent. The master-twister Droleskey fails to mention that Bp. Petko was to be GONE with Fr. Hall while Florent was to use the facilities - and it was to accommodate Florent’s wishes: Florent was staying at a “Craig Barron’s” house. Craig, a friend of Fr. Hall’s, has a large (and therefore “noisy”) family. Florent was sick at the time, and needed some peace and quiet. Therefore, Bp. Petko offered the use of his room, to be used when and only when he (Bp. Petko) and Fr. Hall were AWAY during the day. Even Florent himself admitted that Droleskey “got this all wrong.” The man willfully misinterpreted this (as he has everything else)!!! Sorry, Dr. D, your lies got exposed again!
Seminarian A provided the details of what happened, providing background as to his encounters with Bishop Petko over the summer of 2011 while he, Seminarian A, was in Ohio, journeying to Indiana to meet Petko for the first time in late-July.
Over the Summer
The first time I went in Indiana together with the former seminarian was this past summer, by the second half of July, if I remember correctly.
The first thing I noticed was the long hugs Bp. Petko would give to the former seminarian and I, before retiring to bed, every single night. I found that strange and was rather embarrassed, especially by the length and tightness of his embraces (Bp. Petko would hug the former seminarian even longer). [Again, what person in his right mind would “tolerate” this; this story smacks of “fabrication” and “orchestration”!]
I remember him making a strange remark, while he was talking about his years in Winona —we were driving in his own car, [the former seminarian] was probably in the car as well— that "the SSPX is very homophobic." [Nice touch, guys, but not believable that Bp. Petko would “volunteer” such a statement; again, too much “embellishment” in the script!!]
After four days spent in Indiana, [the former seminarian] and I went back to Cincinnati. The next week Bp. Petko came down to Cincinnati to spend a week with [the former seminarian] in the trailer, without telling anyone, besides [the former seminarian]. To the general surprise, he did not mention anything to Fr. Ramolla. [Again, he does not “report” to Fr. Ramolla, nor ask his “permission” as to what to do, etc.] I was amazed myself by the incongruity of this situation. To try to remedy, I called Bp. Petko to propose him to come to St. Albert to say Mass; I would take care of preparing vestments and set the Altar. I had the feeling that he did so for I was pushy on it. But he just said Mass once and spent the rest of time with [the former seminarian], watching movies and going to restaurants. At Bp. Petko’s surprise, the first night I went at the Trailer (since I was also sleeping there), I could tell his embarrassment since he thought that [former seminarian] would be always alone at the trailer. He wasn’t expecting anybody else. [Too much “detail” here to have been remembered that distinctly – who wrote the script for this?]
I was already trying to escape his hugs for I knew he was looking for the time before I would retire in my bedroom to embrace me.
Comment: How gullible do you think we are?! This story is getting repetitive -- and no court in the land would believe it.
When we picked up Bp. Petko at the Airport [on Wednesday, October 19, 2011], he started to speak about his years in Winona. Bp. Petko was speaking about a certain priest named ‘Carlos’, with whom he was more or less friend, and, according to his own words, was ‘a brilliant professor; so talented; who could learn languages so easily’ I asked him ‘Are you talking about Carlos Urrutigoity?’ And he said ‘yes.’ I was quite surprised that he would speak of him in such terms, for his name is all over Internet, known as a homosexual predator of the worst species. [Bp. Petko did NOT just “start speaking about his years in Winona, or about “Carlos”; he was responding to questions that Florent asked him about Carlos; it was Florent who brought up the subject.
Then I said: ‘It seems that he was an open homosexual.’, and he replied ‘Oh, I don’t know about this… he might have had a particular friendship with Matthew [I’m not absolutely sure of the name, but I think it was Matthew; and it would fit with the book of Randy Engel] in the Seminary, but it’s all I know about it.’
Well… it should have been enough to give a red light. But… And Father Hall is also witness of this conversation. He might even remember of other elements of this conversation. (For a complete report on Carlos Urrutigoity and his corrupt Society of Saint John, please see Mrs. Randy Engel's Exploiting Traditionalist: Orders The Society of St. John. This article has graphic content that must not be read by the young and by those who no need of such information.)
Comment: So what if Fr. Hall “witnessed” the conversation! Horse dung is still horse dung, no matter who witnesses it. Is his “witnessing” supposed to add credence to this tripe? When I asked Fr. Hall about it, he couldn’t even remember it, much less care. And does this “Carlos” being an alleged homosexual make Bp. Petko one too? Come on, Droleskey!
The day of my ordination, in the morning, I went at the Guest House to speak with Bp. Petko before the ceremony. I talked to him a long time and expressed my joy concerning the opening of St. Athanasius Seminary, and -- as I told him -- to have superiors who truly care and love us. That’s where he got very emotional, stood up, did a sign with his hand telling me to stand as well, embraced me longly [sic], and kissed me in the neck at least twice, and repeatedly said: ‘I love you; I love you my son.’
The embrace with kisses in the neck happened one more time.
Comment: Too much embellishment here, Dr. D! You always “overdo” the mendacious details, don’t you?!! This simply never happened.
While Bp. Petko would talk for hours about his friendships, affections, emotions and different similar topics, he said once: ‘If you would show your affection to someone, and if you would go too far… well, just go to confession, and be more prudent next time.’ If confession is required, this means a mortal sin is involved. Those words indeed worried me a lot for I was amazed that a Bishop could deal so lightly with sin.
Bp. Petko also proposed to me to use his own shower: strange proposition since a public shower was available at the Guest House for the rooms which were not equipped of their own bathroom. The public shower was the door next to Bp. Petko’s room. I could not see the need to propose his own shower; which proposition I of course declined.
On an other occasion, he proposed me to sleep in his room: I have to precise that two beds were in his room and when he proposed me to use his own room, he would have been gone most part of the day. However, I refused for I was not feeling comfortable with such an invitation.
Bp. Petko would always try to give me one of his long hugs before going to bed. I could not escape it, or —should I say— I was too scared to refuse his embraces. He would say: ‘I love you; I love my son’, to which I would not reply. Then he said: ‘If someone tells you “I love you,” you have to say “I love you too.”’ Since then, when he would say: ‘I love you’, I replied: —to be polite— ‘Me too.’
Bp. Petko would not speak much about spiritual topics or Church matters, but more about his ‘very, very close friendship’ —as he said— with [the son of the Ritters].
One afternoon that I was left alone in a living room with Bp. Petko (he was seated in a sofa) he said: ‘Come and sit.’ I said that I preferred to remain standing. Then he stood up, walked towards the door, closed it, and came back to the sofa. I was feeling very uncomfortable and even scared: What need does he have to close the door, besides that nobody else could see what’s going on in the room. So I pretexted that I have to use the restroom to open the door and leave. When I came back, I leaned against the door so he would not attempt to close it again, and I started to talk about history and ecclesiastical matters. He did not say a word. Then I asked him: ‘What are you doing next week?’, and he replied: ‘There are no classes at the Seminary, but I would like to go to Cincinnati anyway to see [Seminarian B] alone and have some time with him.’
Comment: Ya know, it’s amazing how much detail these seminarians can remember (and how you “captured” it all)! Sorry, I just don’t believe this hearsay. I guess you figure if you keep repeating charges, people will start to believe them (like the political “ads” on TV). Well, repetition IS “the mother of belief” – for gullible fools.
May I also point out that it is common courtesy – not “sexual harassment” -- to offer to have someone sit down when having a conversation with him? And when there is a lot of noise going on (which there was), it is natural to close the door to keep it out. I just don’t believe this young man. His “testimony” smacks of orchestrated cow dung.
I expressed already to Father Ramolla those strange behaviours, I even said that I did not want to sleep under the roof as Bp. Petko. But I remember saying to Fr. Ramolla that I was myself getting overboard, that I have no substantial reason to think that way. I even suggested Fr. Ramolla to totally forget about my allegations.
Although I found Bp. Petko’s kindness somewhat invasive (smiling at me, grabbing me by the arm, compliments, and other similar signs of friendship), I was glad that he seemed to care about me, as well as for the other seminarians. It’s not the place here to explain what I went through before, but I was not on my guard and I wanted to trust him. I voluntarily closed my eyes on certain things, thinking: ‘It’s just my bad spirit.’ Nor I even told him my embarrassment: I thought he intends well, he just wants to be affectionate for he knows that we went through so many many difficulties in our path to the priesthood. I did not want to hurt him. I have to acknowledge that I was flattered by his compliments after having been treated with any kind of name callings. And such behaviours were so totally new to me that I could not figure things out alone.
Comment: What is he trying to say here? It sounds like it’s still Florent talking here (the wording here is that of a foreigner not familiar with English sentence structure). It’s a bit confusing (and it also smacks of “fabrication”) – bottom line: more irrelevant falderal, more hearsay.
Seminarian A [Florent] also told me in a face-to-face conversation via Skype on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, that Bishop Petko told him that he had been turned down by thirty-seven conciliar "bishops" following his dismissal from the Diocese of Allentown in 1986 just weeks before his scheduled "priestly ordination" according to the conciliar rite. Only "Bishop" James Clifford Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton was willing to accept him. What Petko did not tell Seminarian A was that he had taken and failed a psychological examination for the Diocese of Scranton.
Comment: He did not fail the exam; he didn’t even take it! Droleskey is referring here to a series of events that are too tedious to relate and which are absolutely irrelevant: Bp. Petko was undergoing a series of experiences that included an overseas stay in Australia, a stint with the SSPX, the Society of St. Peter, and the Diocese of Scranton, the dynamics of which are – as I said -- too involved and tedious to retell. It was at a time when he was “transitioning” from Novus Ordo to traditional. Suffice it to say that Bp. Welsh of Allentown – one of the “thirty-seven conciliar bishops” by whom he was “turned down” -- had this to say: “Paul, you did nothing immoral or scandalous; everybody likes you; I just can’t go against the faculty and ordain you” (because Petko was too “traditional” – and they saw that). Once again, Droleskey drags things out of context and twists them to his liking.
Seminarian A also told me during that Skype conversation that Petko divulged personal matters relating to the Ritters, the precise nature of which need to not be disclosed publicly. The confidential matters do not suggest any sinful conduct on the part of the Ritters, but nevertheless it was totally inappropriate for Petko to bring up the subject and then to disclose it to another person for no justifiable reason.
Comment: Oh, come on! This is really reaching for something to put into print! Bp. Petko has been with the Ritters for twelve years; so what if he mentioned something about them in passing?! It looks as if, in your Skype conversation, you were “digging for dirt”; and you came up with what amounts to an innocuous, irrelevant “nothing.” Haven’t you wasted enough page space already, Dr. D??!!
Although I was I was horrified [horrified?! horrified about what? What you just mentioned, or something else?], keeping knowledge of this whole matter [what “whole matter”?] confined to Father Ramolla and another layman, who advised me in a lengthy phone conversation on Thursday, October 27, 2011, that Seminarian A [Florent] believed that the danger [what danger?] had passed, telling me that it was best to wait until Petko returned from England for Father Ramolla, who was outraged that something like this had happened to one of his seminarians, to talk to him in person and take the necessary action. As I was not in charge of a thing despite bearing responsibility for Petko's having been involved with Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church and Saint Athanasius Seminary, I accepted the judgment of the layman. Things changed by the next morning, Friday, October 28, 2011, when the layman had talked to Seminarian A via Skype, learning of Petko's intention to visit Seminarian B [Marcellus] "alone" to "have some time with him," at which point he was convinced that the dismissal had to occur that very day as the danger was quite high.
Comment: The foregoing is a bunch of disjointed, confusing gobbledygook; and, of course, whatever is intelligible is hearsay – and more lies. Get your proofreader to go over your next article, moron, before you embarrass yourself again by publishing such swill.
And by the way, if “the whole matter [was] confined to Fr. Ramolla and another layman,” then why are you telling the whole world about it now? The “whole matter” he is referring to here is, by the way, Florent’s false accusations (against Bp. Petko) that precipitated his dismissal (by Ramolla) from SAG. And if Droleskey was “not in charge” and “accepted the judgment of the layman” [about Florent’s false accusations], then why did Droleskey write Bp. Petko’s dismissal letter, and give the instructions of how it was to be presented to him?
Concerning the paragraph’s last sentence about Bp. Petko’s “intention to visit seminarian B” [Marcellus], Bp. Petko’s reason for visiting him was to address Marcellus’ disturbing e-mail to him – which no one knew about at the time. However, its contents will be revealed; and they will more than explain the necessity of the visit – and expose Droleskey for the insidious liar and slanderer that he is.
It had been my judgment as a result of dealing with similar cases (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment, More Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case and Seven Years Later) and being thoroughly conversant with court depositions in scores upon scores of others, I knew that immediacy of action was vital in this matter. My view was this: Petko could claim upon his return to the United States of America that no one had mentioned a thing about his behavior when he was in England. If the matter was so important, he could claim, why did not anyone speak to him while he was there? Immediacy and contemporaneousness is everything in these cases.
Remember, one of the defenses made by conciliar "bishops" and their chancery "factotums" and attorneys has been that victims of clerical abuse waited "too long" to levy charges against priests. Why did they wait so long? Why did they let things get out of hand over time? Why did not they report the matter immediately? Obviously, those questions are double-edged swords as ordinary Catholics and prosecutors around the nation have asked those conciliar officials why they did not act immediately when faced with these charges, why they did not take action to safeguard present and future victims, why they promoted and protected the clergy abusers at every turn, sometimes promoting them in spite (or maybe because) of their scandalous actions.
Father John J. "Jackie Boy" Sullivan (Jackie Boy Remembered Yet Again) told seminarians at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, when I was studying there in 1983-1984 academic year while teaching graduate courses on Saturdays at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York, that even the suspicion that a seminarian was a homosexual was sufficient grounds for his dismissal when he was at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, from 1935 to 1940:
"Look,” he said on that first day in September of 1983. “You need to be men in Christ’s priesthood. This is no place for wimps or pansies or queers. If I even suspect you are a queer, I am going to boot your butt out of this seminary. Do you hear me? Do you understand me?” he exclaimed in no uncertain terms, turning his very large head with its mane of white hair from side to side sticking out his jaw for emphasis and blinking his eyes several times to make sure he had made his point. “You are called to be celibates if you persevere in this man’s priesthood. But if you tell me you don’t like girls, there’s something wrong with you. Yeah, if you tell me you see a Number 10 walking down the street and you’re not attracted to her, there are one of five possibilities: Number 1, you are dead. Number 2, you are blind. Number 3, you are made of cement. Number 4, you are a liar. Number 5, you’re a queer."
"You don't like that, you gorillas? Let me tell you the way it is: I don't want to see you gorillas going around hugging each other like you're girls, do you hear me? You can get that in other seminaries, not here. When I was the "The Rock," Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, it was considered prima facie proof of your being a homosexual if the door was closed to your dormitory room while another seminarian was visiting. Out you went on your butt. No appeals. No second chances. Gone. And that's going to happen to you here. I don't care what your intention is. Intentions are not what matters in this man's priesthood. It's actions. It's appearances. You tell me that I have to listen to your intentions and I will tell you that you are on the path to Hell. Do I make myself clear? Good! Dont' forget it!"
I haven't forgotten, Jackie Boy. I haven't forgotten. It is evidently the case that many Catholics, oblivious as to how Church officials used to handle such cases as the one posed by Bishop Petko's behavior, quite summarily, have indeed forgotten the truth that the Catholic Church makes no concessions to even the appearance of scandal, less yet to engaging in behavior that is beneath the dignity of the Holy Priesthood.
One who was not as earthy as Father Sullivan, Saint Anthony Mary Claret, put the matter this way:
…the only morally certain solution to cure such a problem is the disbanding of the faculty and student body, and the dismissal of the chaplains and confessors from their duties there; if the institute is to be reconstituted, this may only be done if there are entirely new faculty, students, and priestly support to do so; this is so because there are always relationships which will never be discovered, and if these are present in the new foundation, the conspiracy will be renewed. Problems like this can be avoided in good foundations only if confessors and spiritual directors take recidivism in matters of the 6th and 9th commandments seriously, and are given authority to expel candidates that do not have the grace of chastity and continence, without human respect. (As found in Exploiting Traditionalist: Orders The Society of St. John. This article has graphic content that must not be read by those who no need of such information.)
Comment: Again, more irrelevant verbiage from “expert sources” to bulk up the volume of this bloated carcass of an article, which you then try to “tie in” to Bp. Petko -- the old “volume equals evidence” ploy. Dr. Dirtbag, do you never tire of printing irrelevant nonsense, and passing it off as “evidence”?
Father Ramolla was justifiably angry [“justifiably angry”? -- See comments below] This is not a “man of God” over the appearance of the sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, very upset that the soul of a young man had been so very wounded, even more upset that some of his associates seemed to be more concerned about Bishop Petko's tender sensibilities than the injury that he caused Seminarian A. Father Ramolla tried to convince these associates in a Skype conference call that Friday evening after Holy Mass of the gravity of the situation represented by Petko's behavior, becoming so exasperated at one point that he yelled (I was in an outer office), "He is not coming here again. There will be blood on the streets if he shows up. I will kill this man." Father Ramolla did not mean this. However, he said it, and one of his associates then told Bishop Petko about the outburst at some point after his return to the United States on Saturday, October 29, 2011. Some of the very same people who opposed the abuses at Saint Gertrude the Great Church in West Chester, Ohio, and who publicly speculated in very direct terms about what they thought they knew about the moral lives of Bishop Daniel and Father Anthony Cekada were now finding a way to excuse or minimize or, at the very least, or to "understand" behavior that could be attested to by at the one eyewitness who had come forth at the time. There have been others since.
Comment: Anyone who calls himself a ”man of God” would not fly off the handle and say the things that Fr. Ramolla said – no matter what. Ramolla’s “rage” was staged – and totally out of all proportion to the (alleged) transgressions. His response was as phony as the proverbial “three dollar bill.” He’s about as good an actor as Elvis (and Elvis was terrible!). Even if he were sincere, who would want such a temperamental man for a priest, let alone a bishop. I wouldn’t.
The fact that Fr. Ramolla refused to even face Bp. Petko or to hear him (as I said before) shows a deplorable lack of Christian charity and basic human justice.
Father Hall, afraid that Father Ramolla would lose his temper if he honored his demand to speak with Petko on the phone to explain matters to him in no uncertain terms, kept putting Father Ramolla off, meaning that the dismissal would not take place on that Friday evening. Father Ramolla proceeded to send a dismissal letter to Father Hall in England.
It was thus the case that Father Hall drove Bishop Petko to the airport on Saturday, October 29, 2011, with the dismissal letter in an envelope. Bishop Petko inquired after Seminarian A, wondering why he was not going to the airport with him. Father Hall explained why, handing him the dismissal letter, which read as follows:
Your Excellency: This is to notify you of your immediate and permanent dismissal from the faculty of Saint Athanasius Seminary. You are hereby forbidden to enter upon the grounds of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church in Fairfield, Ohio, or to enter upon the premises of the trailer [at a given address]. You are hereby forbidden to have any contact with any of the seminarians of Saint Athanasius Seminary or any of the parishioners of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church at any time in any manner whatsoever. Any violation of this demand will result in the issuance of a cease and desist letter. A refusal of you to obey the terms of such a letter, if necessity compels its issuance, will result in the obtaining of a court Order of Protection against you. The confidentiality of the circumstances that precipitated this dismissal will be maintained if it is accepted in a spirit of docility for the good of Holy Mother Church and for the souls all involved.
Comment: Such a letter all but tied Bp. Petko’s hands in defending himself against the false accusations against him. Later, when certain board members insisted on Bp. Petko “having his day in court,” Fr. Ramolla actually resigned rather than meet with him. But he resigned in such a way as to portray himself as a “martyr.” The ploy worked: pretty soon, parishioners were demanding that he return (and that board members in opposition to him be ousted). A special board meeting was called; and Fr. Ramolla was voted back in as pastor, provided that Bp. Petko be allowed to meet with the SAG board. That promise has not been kept. Board members siding with Fr. Ramolla reneged on what was formally stipulated and voted on at the board meeting – so much for written promises!!
According to what I was told by Father Ramolla, Bishop Petko told Father Hall that "Nothing sexual was intended." In light of what Seminarian A later reported, however, a reasonable person could indeed construe that "if things go too far" and one could "always go confession" as having a definite sexual connotation. Petko said, however, that he would abide by the terms of the dismissal, which were premised upon trying to prevent another scandal from erupting into public view and into helping him realize the gravity of his conduct, serving as incentive for him to reform what was, at the very least, a careless indifference to the appearance of scandal. It was time for a sigh of relief. That time, however, was very short lived.
The Length of a Transatlantic Flight
Bishop Petko's word about keeping the terms of the dismissal letter lasted the length of a transatlantic flight. He was not to go gently into that good night. Not knowing this [not knowing what? To what is he referring by “this”?], I prepared an e-mail to provide a review of the facts of the case, and it is to that e-mail that Bishop Petko has taken offense. The ironic part of that e-mail, which was based on information then known or had been remembered incorrectly that has been corrected in this article (that Petko invited Seminarian A into "his" bed when the invitation was to use the other bed in his guest room when he was scheduled to be out for most of a day and that the "consecration" of Dennis McCormack took place in Galesburg, Illinois, and not Long Island as noted in that e-mail and the fact that Bishop Petko attended a seminar with Mrs. Ritter about beekeeping and not an entire series of classes as I had recalled incorrectly while writing the e-mail), was written before I knew anything about what had happened to the former seminarian and to Seminarian B. It did not occur to me that that e-mail would make its way to Bishop Petko.
Comment: First of all, Bp. Petko never gave his word about keeping the terms of the dismissal letter confidential. Bp. Petko adds, “I was given threats with no chance to respond.”
Secondly, regarding the sentence where Deoleskey says, “Not knowing this [my emphasis], I prepared an e-mail to provide a review of the facts of the case…” -- why was the e-mail preemptively prepared in advance; and – as my parenthetic comments to Droleskey’s text ask -- to what is Droleskey referring by “this”?? If he didn’t have “fore-knowledge,” then why did he prepare his “review of the facts” [facts??!] in advance? This is both confusing and illogical!
Thirdly, Bp. Petko and Mrs. Ritter NEVER attended a “bee-keeping seminar.” For one thing, Mrs. Ritter is allergic to bees. She simply mentioned to Sharon Droleskey one day that she wished that she could do bee-keeping because it was a very ancient and “Catholic” thing that monks used to do in the past. Apparently, something got “lost (more like twisted) in the translation” between Sharon and Dr. D; and he mutated a “comment in passing” into a trip to a bee-keeping seminar! Wow, what a vivid imagination!
Lastly, regarding the “ ‘consecration’ of Dennis McCormick”: it doesn’t matter where he got consecrated; Bp. Petko has nothing to do with him, so why is Droleskey dredging up such irrelevant crap??!! And he says that he has no vendetta against Bp. Petko or the Ritters??!!!
It was almost immediately after he had cleared customs at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, on Saturday, October 29, 2011, that he whipped out his cellular phone, which did not work in England, and called a woman who helps to coordinate Bishop Slupski's travels. Bishop Petko wanted to speak with Bishop Slupski, arranging ultimately to drive from Lizton, Indiana, on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, All Saints Day, to Rock Falls, Illinois, to meet Bishop Slupski.
Bishop Petko had driven with Mrs. Kathleen Ritter, who met Bishop Slupski upon his arrival at a restaurant over an hour after they had been scheduled to meet as he had been delayed by driving from one Mass location to another that day. Bishop Slupski was scandalized that Petko had driven all that distance with a married woman, shocked as to his being oblivious about the appearance of scandal that he gave. [Here we go again: “appearances”!]
Mrs. Ritter greeted him as he got out his car as follows, "We will have a meeting." Bishop Slupski said, "No WE won't - I am only meeting with Bishop Petko alone." They met for fifteen minutes. Bishop Slupski told Petko to put what he wanted in writing, telling him, "I will give you my opinion after I read your letter." Bishop Slupski then went off to offer Holy Mass on the Holy Day of Obligation in Rockford, Illinois. It was two weeks later that Bishop Slupski administered the Sacrament of Confirmation at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church in Fairfield, Ohio, giving a rousing endorsement of the priestly work of Father Markus Ramolla.
Comment: …And giving a rousing discrediting of Fr. Hall – which turned out to be a pack of lies. And it was embarrassingly obvious that Bp. Slupski had been fed those lies by Fr. Ramolla. Some might argue that the information came from another source; but it was too detailed for it to be from anyone other than Ramolla. One eye-witness to Bp. Slupski’s speech recounted it this way:
He [Bp. Slupski] said “With all responsibility to God, I stand here before you and say this (advice)”. He then explained how priests are human beings and make mistakes, and how no one is perfect; implying that Fr. Ramolla may have made minor mistakes, and therefore is no exception to the rule of human frailty.
The Bishop made an example of a business-minded priest, whose name he didn’t say, by describing how the man’s traveling expenses have all been paid for and he is taken care of, and still is demanding a high “$400.00 minus 100.00 dollar salary for preforming one mass a week.” “That is a business people,” he continued.
It was obvious to the eye-witness (who heretofore knew NOTHING of what had been going on at SAG) – and to most of the parishioners present -- that the remarks were aimed at (and at the expense of) Fr. Hall – a man who has worked tirelessly for SAG and who has unselfishly supported Fr. Ramolla all along.
It might have been excusable if it were true, but it wasn’t: Fr. Ramolla forgot to tell Bp. Slupski that Fr. Hall has NOT been paid what Slupski reported he has, NOR have any of his travel expenses been reimbursed by Fr. Ramolla or SAG; they were paid by the people whom he visited in Britain and France. Fr. Ramolla deliberately misrepresented what actually happened; that is, HE LIED.
Also, how does Droleskey know so much about what went on at the meeting between Bp. Slupski and Bp. Petko? He was not there; besides, what he said went on did NOT go on. He quotes people that he did not hear speak – and they did not say what he quotes them as having said.
New Evidence Emerges as Bishop Petko Seeks "Reinstatement"
As often happens in these cases, the story of one person leads to others coming forth with theirs. This is what happened as both the former seminarian, quoted above, and another seminarian, who shall be called Seminarian B, came forward with his own experiences. I knew none of this. Seminarian B described his experience with Petko as follows:
Q: How did you first hear of Bishop Paul Petko?
A: I first heard of him on the day of his consecration to the episcopacy (March 11, 2011) through a phone call of my confrere, Seminarian A: .
Q: When did you first meet him? What struck you at first about him.
A: I met Bishop Petko for the first time on September 15, 2011. Actually in the very first instant of seeing him I was struck by what I thought were ugly features [Oh yes! “Ugly features” are a sure sign of evil!]. Other than that I was not too impressed by anything regarding his person.
Q: You have said that he embraced you for what seemed to be a long time when he first met you. How long? Did you welcome this embrace? Please explain if you welcomed it.
A: On the same day (Sept 15) when I was saying good-bye to Bishop Petko in the parking lot, I thanked him for encouraging Seminarian A and the former seminarian, and myself during the summer. Then he smiled at me and made the gesture of opening his arms. So I responded by welcoming his embrace. He held me for about five seconds, which came to my mind as strangely long for a first embrace. [Wow, you all said “five seconds”! What a coincidence!]
Q: Please describe the ways in which you developed what appears to be from the e-mails you sent to Bishop Petko a very deep level of affection for him.
A: Bishop Petko initiated the 'affection.' [Hearsay. Prove it, sonny!] It was he who first said to me in the summer, "I love you, son." And it was he who first made the gesture for an embrace. I was happy because I really thought that he liked me, cared for my soul, and just wanted to help me become a priest. Consequently, I did ask him to become my spiritual director. He was "delighted," and asked me then to treat him as a father and inquired if I felt comfortable around him. I said that I did and I expressed trust in him, but I also said, "Don't give me any reason not to (trust you)." But as it is now he did give reason for me not to trust him. He seemed to want a hug at every turn, so to speak. The length of the embracing were too long and, on his part, very tight. I didn't think too much of it at the time, I just thought he was probably a very affectionate man going overboard in his affections. So, not giving much heed to my misgivings, I did respond to his 'affection', hence my emails.
Q: Other than the embracing, did Bishop Petko give you any other gestures of "affection"?
A: Yes, often he would softly rub my back or give big smiles and finally he even twice kissed my neck, the last time we saw each other.
Q: How did you respond to this gestures of affection?
A: As I mentioned above I did like his affection and, despite some misgivings, I did not reject them.
Q: Did you inform your rector, Father Markus Ramolla, of the bond that you had developed with Bishop Petko as it was forming? If not, when did you inform him of the approaches and advances made by Bishop Petko?
A: No, I did not inform the rector, Father Markus Ramolla, of the bond I was forming with Bp. Petko until Seminarian A told us of Petko's behavior with him in England.
Q: Have you discussed Bishop Petko's behavior with you with other young men who have had similar experiences? If so, please describe what they told you.
A: I have indeed spoken much with Seminarian A and the former seminarian about Petko's behavior. They have not only experienced the frequent, long and tight embraces of the prelate as well as the kissing on the neck, but have been invited to use his shower and sleep in his room on more than on occasion. [The former seminarian] has told us also that the Bishop during one of his protracted embracing gave his rump a squeeze! [You rehearsed your lines well! You didn’t leave out one detail!]
Q: Please add anything else that you believe is necessary to discuss concerning your own experiences in this matter.
A: I had wanted to form a true friendship with Bp. Petko, since I thought that he really want to help me become a priest. And I tried to direct, as I always do, this friendship and affection toward God who is love itself, and without Whom, no true friendships can exist. However, even though I made clear allusions to this and other spiritual things, my supposed spiritual director, remained rather silent in this regard. But I was too hasty to open up to this man and with the help of Seminarian A and [the former seminarian's] along with Fr. Ramolla's assessment of Petko's behavior, I soon realized that a bad picture was coming together around the bishop.
Q: Do you believe that Father Ramolla acted rashly in seeking to dismiss Bishop Petko immediately upon learning of these multiple allegations?
A: I do not believe that Father Ramolla acted rashly in his dismissal of Bishop Petko. There was enough evidence to judge that Bp. Petko had other agendas with the seminarians and was a danger to them. So Fr. Ramolla rightly and promptly dismissed him to protect the seminarians and St. Albert the Great Church.
Q: Is there anything you would like to add to what you said?
A: I think it pertinent to mention the fact that Bp. Petko told all three of us (the former seminarian, Seminarian A, and myself) of his intimacies with a young man in Indiana. "We were very affectionate," said the bishop. He told us that this young man said that twenty minutes was long enough for a hug! And he related that this young man had to pass through Petko's room in order to get to his own room. He enjoyed narrating the fact that sometimes at night he could feel this young man climbing into and moving about his bed in order to embrace the prelate!
Seminarian B comes from what he calls a very affectionate family. He has made a mistake in believing that signs of physical affection must accompany genuine concern for one's welfare, both temporal and, more importantly, eternal. While each culture has different ways of expressing affection as men in Europe and Latin America are noted for embracing each other briefly and kissing on both cheeks, seminarians do not "need" gestures of physical affection to prove that their superiors care for them. The genuine affection that we have for each person is an act of the will as we seek his good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of his immortal souls. No one could imagine Bishop Donald Sanborn, for example, kissing a seminarian on the neck or embracing him so tightly that he would have to warn him that he could go to confession if "things" went "too far"? Despite my disagreements with Bishop Sanborn on some matters of substance and pastoral praxis, he comports himself with priestly dignity, if, of course, being something of a surly New Yorker, which this New Yorker finds appealing.
Bishop Petko believes that two e-mails that Seminarian B sent to him that were filled with expressions of gratitude for his overflowing affection exculpate his behavior with him. [This sentence grammatically makes no sense; also, what Droleskey calls “overflowing affection” is actually homosexual pap, ans the letter will reveal when it is exposed] Seminarian B has explained this very thoroughly above. He was allowed to be drawn into the well-conceived plan of a man who has, it appears, great experience in selecting and then grooming vulnerable, sensitive young men, not boys, who he believes would be open to his "gestures of affection." The predatory nature of this grooming is such that it is the goal of the predator to make his victim lower his resistance to increasingly more intimate "gestures of affection." In this case, of course, Bishop Petko told Seminarian A that he would just have to "more prudent" if "things" went "too far," which is the whole point of the predatory behavior. Ambivalence is thus created within the soul of the intended prey, making him confused about what is proper and improper, what is sinful and what is not. what is normal and what is perverted. [When Bp. Petko told the young man to be more prudent in his actions, he is speaking of the actions of the young man, not his. This is sound advice, not “grooming”].
Far from serving as Bishop Petko's "magic bullet," if you will, Seminarian B's e-mails prove how clever Petko was to ingratiate himself to this young man, who had suffered wounds at Holy Cross Minor Seminary in Australia and at Mater Dei Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska, that he should have offered up to Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, but, being young, nurtured, making him vulnerable to a sort of preternatural cleverness that he did not anticipate coming from a true Catholic bishop. He has learned a very valuable lesson as he could have become a clone of the man to whom he had expressed and shown affection, a man who wanted to exploit him for his own selfish purposes. Seminarian B sought true spiritual affection from Bishop Petko, who promised him in one e-mail that "I will never allow you to be starved for affection." A well-formed Catholic bishop would teach a young man to have a sense of detachment from creatures, seeking whatever consolation he needs in times of desolation from prayer spent before the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God, both of which are integral parts of Seminarian B's priestly life but were not fostered by the time he spent with Bishop Petko.
A traditional priest who knows Seminarian B very well understood this situation perfectly when I spoke with him about the seminarian's letter to Petko and its contents. The priest said that the letter the young man had sent to Petko that some believe are grounds for the seminarian's expulsion from Saint Athanasius Seminary must be understood in the context of his native and trusting nature. The traditional priest with whom I spoke said that he knew how such things could happen even to a "fine young" man as Seminarian B, who comes from a very affectionate family. He said that he would be willing to help support this young man in any way that he could and attest to his moral character.
Comment: Droleskey has done what he thinks is a masterful job of creating the notion that Bp. Petko is responsible for “seminarian B’s” over-the-top “love letter” to him – that is, that Bp. Petko “initiated” behavior that caused this seminarian to write an “excessive” letter of affection, etc. Sorry, Dr. D, the seminarian’s letter cannot be “explained away” by such assertions. By ANYONE’S yardstick, the letter is that of a HOMOSEXUAL; and the seminarian is a HOMOSEXUAL. This same seminarian also wrote yet another love-letter to another young man. Is this other young man also guilty of “grooming”? Come on, Droleskey, cut the crap!!
All of the “evidence” and “testimony” presented by Droleskey in this long, drawn out marathon of verbiage is UNPROVEN HEARSAY. There is NO EVIDENCE to substantiate it, other than the carefully rehearsed and orchestrated “testimony” of seminarians (and a former seminarian) who all share the same vested interest. Very much talk, very much insinuation, very much accusation, very much assertion – but NO fact, and NO proof. And for those who say that the assertions are “too detailed” to be false, I’ll counter by saying that they are too detailed (and too similar) to be true; the “sameness” is what really gives them away.
Many of the “facts” quoted by the seminarians are directly from a “fact sheet” written by Droleskey. The only problem is that they are not facts, but hearsay – assertion, with no proof at all; and many (if not all) are known lies. Both Bp. Petko and the Ritters are amassing evidence that will refute these and other of Droleskey’s lies. Dr. D, I hope that you have a good lawyer; you’ll need one!
We, on the other hand, DO have facts; we DO have proof: written proof that Fr. Ramolla IGNORED Fr. Hall, both in salary and in his visa process. We DO have proof that at least one of the seminarians wrote a letter (that we have) that any court anywhere will say is the letter of a homosexual. And, it turns out, there is also proof that Fr. Ramolla has engaged in past “transgressions,’ both at SAG and at another satellite church location. Several parishioners have knowledge of it – and an increasing number of people outside the SAG “sphere” are aware of it too.
It is ironic that Bp. Petko, on whom there is NO real evidence, has been vilified and has had his good name destroyed; and that Fr. Ramolla, on whom there IS real evidence, has suffered no such injury. But the truth will eventually come out, and so will Fr. Ramolla’s credibility evaporate. The lid will not stay on the kettle for long.
When In Doubt, Blame Droleskey [and, yes, I do blame you!]
Although prior to Bishop Petko's sending of a letter to the Board of Trustees of Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church, which had never "hired" him, paying only his expenses, demanding my removal from the parish and claiming that I had a "vendetta" against him, I had spoken to a grand total of four people, including an attorney, about this matter, I am being accused now of having spread the news of this scandal. It was, however, Bishop Petko who broke his word about keeping the confidentiality agreement, seeking to justify himself to Bishop Slupski and thus making it necessary for me to make inquiries of others, such as Father Devillers, who had information that I had been lacking before.
Comment: You claim that you spoke to a “grand total of four people”; and, by your own words, you claim that Bp. Petko spoke only to one (Bp. Slupski). According to my reckoning, that says that you violated confidentiality about four times as many as he did!! Dr. D, you should get the blue ribbon this year for the foot-in-mouth award!! And as for keeping it to just four people, I just don’t believe you, Dr. D!!!
By the way, Bp. Petko’s expenses were not paid by St. Albert’s; he paid his own. And there was no “confidentiality agreement” – only threats made against Bp. Petko not to contact any SAG parishioners or to set foot on the property. Bp. Petko had every right to contact Bp. Slupski, who consecrated him; it is no business of Droleskey’s or of anyone else’s that he did so. Droleskey not only (by his own admission) spoke to several people, but he then posted his trash on a public website – and then accused Bp. Petko of “breaking their agreement”].
This is very classic of the same intimidation, "blame the accuser" game that is boiler-plate material for those whose scandalous actions come to light as they show not a trace of remorse for the harm that they have done to the souls of others. My own sins, which are so many, deserve far worse than the castigation that has come my way, and I gladly accept it all as coming from the loving hand of God and give whatever merit earned by its patient endurance back to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, right readily forgiving those are the instruments of His just chastising of my immortal soul. The truth of each person's life is revealed only on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead. I am content until then for my own role in this, which I certainly did not want and has interfered greatly with my own work, including the publication of my e-book, to be known in the light of Truth Himself. This is not about me. This is about the protection of souls, both temporally and eternally.
Comment: You FINALLY spoke the truth: “My own sins, which are so many, deserve far worse than the castigation that has come my way” -- but that’s where the truth ends! All I have to say is: you had better be buried in an asbestos coffin, to keep you from the flames for just a little while longer! And for anyone who reads this, they’ll need a barf bag!!
I made an error of judgment, to be sure, in believing that those with whom I shared my concerns after Bishop Petko's dismissal would see this situation clearly, yes, even given what was at that time, at the very least, only the appearance of scandal, rather than seek to find "nuance" and "complexity" where none existed. Bernard "Cardinal" Law tried to find "nuance" and "complexity" in the clergy abuse cases that he covered-up and/or excused in the Archdiocese of Boston. The appearance of scandal, however, is never a matter of "nuance" or 'complexity." It is a matter of moral black and moral white. There is no in-between. Intentions do no matter.
Comment: Wrong, Bro’! The “appearance of scandal” can be shaded every which way – and you have tried to mutate white into black; and when it comes to hypocrisy, you’re about as black as it gets!
A priest has the responsibility at all times to comport himself with dignity. And while it is always possible for a priest, especially one who is young and lets his emotional guard down, to commit an error in this regard when it pertains to a female parishioner as such is the nature of the Order of Creation (see Priests and Emotional Love, written by a conciliar priest), even the suggestion of unnatural vice or what can be construed reasonably as the enticing of young men into gestures and embraces as "signs of affection" that can go so "far" as to require making a confession thereafter are intolerable in the life of a priest. It is no defense for one in such a situation to seek to blame those who express their concerns about such behavior for damaging his reputation when he is responsible for damaging it all on his own, a reputation that he worsens by being utterly unconcerned about the wound that has been caused in the young men with whom he sought to initiate these gestures that could, to use his own words, "go too far."
Comment: Are you talking about Fr. Ramolla here, or about yourself?
The seminarians in this matter are willing to lay down their very vocations [souls, you mean!] to defend the truth [lies, you mean!] in this matter. It appears to be the case that they will be cast with all manner of aspersions upon their own character and their own intentions, especially as concerns Seminarian B's overly expressive letter of affection [aka Homosexual love letter] for Bishop Petko. Stones will be thrown in the direction of Father Ramolla [I hope so! But he deserves more than stones!] Nothing that is attempted in this regard, including noting his own mistakes that he has admitted and fully regrets and has learned from [He neither regrets them nor has he learned from them] (as have many younger priests before him), takes away from the behavior of Bishop Petko as described in this article. And none of those involved in bringing this to light, this writer included, has anything to gain by doing so [Yes you do, you hypocrite!] Father Ramolla has nothing to gain, including the episcopacy, as he was offered that by Bishop Slupski nearly eight months ago now and again in July of this year. [You just mentioned what he has to gain, you moron: the episcopacy! By the way, Droleskey wrote earlier that Ramolla at one time turned down the episcopacy – not because he didn’t want it, but only because he was afraid of the reaction it would cause]. Father Ramolla has everything to lose, including staying at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church and thus in this country. This has not been pleasant, to put things mildly, at all for any of us who have had to deal with this matter. It has been, speaking both spiritually and humanly, very, very trying.
Comment: Yes, Fr. Ramolla has everything to lose, “including staying at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church and thus in this country” -- but not because of Bp. Petko! He will lose it by his own hand (and by your big mouth) – not to mention his own greed and ambition!! Dr. D, what were you smoking when you wrote this last paragraph?!! (Hint: it grows wild in Mexico).
I cannot believe that Droleskey would write such horse dung! He thinks that, after offering his “proof,” he’s now “coming down the home stretch” to wrap thing s up. He’s NOT; actually, he’s stuck back at the stable, staring at a big pile of brown stuff called “Retracting Support for Paul Petko.” And the only way he can see a bigger (and smellier) pile of it is to look in the mirror.
I am responsible for this entire mess in that I was the one who introduced then Father Paul Petko to Father Ramolla. I am thus responsible for the wounds in the souls of the three young men whom he targeted for his "grooming." No matter Bishop Petko's intentions, his actions, taken both individually and in the aggregate, and his pattern of evasive and misleading answers to direct questions demonstrates him to be unfit to be associated with young men, no less to serve as their role model as a seminary professor.
Comment: Droleskey, you are unfit to deal with humanity.
Moreover, the fact that he does not see it as important to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every day when he is physically capable of doing so is a further indication that he has no real understanding of the fact that the world, so starved for Sanctifying and Actual Grace [It’s your soul that is starved of grace, Dr. D] in this time of apostasy and betrayal, is in need of the supernatural helps that flow forth into it from every true offering of Holy Mass. Even though a priest is not required under penalty of Mortal Sin to offer Holy Mass every day, every time he so refuses he denies glory to the Most Blessed Trinity and grace to the world. It is inexcusable, especially today, and this reason alone, if no other reason existed, would be a sufficient ground for recommending Bishop Petko's immediate dismissal. Spiritual sloth and mediocrity are intolerable in the heart of priest, whose immortal soul is configured to the Eternal High Priest and Victim Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Comment: Please, Dr. D! I’m running out of barf bags! Hand me the 55-gallon drum! How many times are you going to repeat this lie?
Remember, nobody at Penn State University wanted to know about Jerry Sandusky because he was so important to the official state religion of State College, Pennsylvania: Nittany Lions football. He is now going on television to seek to "explain" himself. No explanation is necessary. His perverse actions have spoken very clearly. Traditional Catholics cannot play the role of the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums or the administrators of Penn State University by sweeping under the rug for "the sake of peace" crimes against souls, leaving predators free to prey over and over again, which was written with the situation involving Bishop Petko in mind but before it became necessary to address it directly. It has been addressed directly now only because Bishop Petko continues to desire to "explain" himself when his actions have explained all that there is know.
Comment: More repetitious, irrelevant advice from “experts.” You mentioned all this before, moron. And let me add that Bp. Petko does not desire to “explain” himself but to defend himself against false accusations made by people who interpret “what his actions were and what they mean,” with absolutely no input from him].
Petko? He's a Queer. Can't You Tell [Here we go again – more repetition!]
I met with a traditional priest and Father Ramolla for lunch at Romano’s Macaroni Grill in Springdale, Ohio, on Thursday, November, 19, 2009, at a time when the priest, who does live in the Cincinnati area, was working behind-the-scenes to advise Father Ramolla both before and after the latter's dismissal from Saint Gertrude the Great Church. It was at around 1:30 p.m. on that day that the conversation turned to other priests who might be willing to work with Father Ramolla following his unjust dismissal from Saint Gertrude the Great Church. I mentioned the name of Father Petko, not realizing that it was a certain fact that he was not a true priest. The priest looked up me with disdain and said, “Petko? He’s a queer. Can’t you tell?” I was very much taken aback, defending Petko to the priest on April 29, 2010, when the latter received a certified letter from the former demanding a "retraction." (The priest at first denied making the statement when he telephoned me that day. I would have none of it. He said it. I told him that he would find out about it on the Last Day at the General Judgment. He said, "Well, I guess I'll just have to retract the statement." He never did.)
Comment: God help you, you lying wretch! How many more feathers are you going to let fly from that pillow? Droleskey, you are disgusting.
I do not know whether that priest was correct [nor do you care]I do know for sure that Bishop Petko gives every indication that he is as this priest had described him, and I thus owe this priest an apology for doubting his judgment on this matter as they had been in seminary together at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, for a brief time.
Comment: On the one hand, you accuse Bp. Petko of being a womanizer; then you turn around and accuse him of liking men. Get your lies straight, moron!
For The Sake of Souls
It is a terrible, terrible thing to reckon with the fact that one might be responsible for the loss of a single soul [And you are, Dr. D, for your soul!!]. It is thus the case that while decrying the insensitivity to the loss of souls demonstrated by the conciliar "bishops" and others, including the coaches and administrators at Penn State University, we must never lose sight of how we might have demonstrated this insensitivity in our own lives. The loss of the Faith in a single soul is indeed very much a very serious matter to God, and thus it must be for us. This is true for all of us, especially for a priest, something that Saint Anthony Mary Claret observed after a difficult sea voyage from Navarre to Rome caused him to eat salt-water soaked bread while he gave away gold coins that had been given to him by a benefactor onboard the ship with him to Benedictines, who then used the coins to buy money at the ship's store:
"Perhaps, had they [his fellow shipmates] seen me sitting at table partaking of rich meals, they might have criticized and depreciated me, as I have seen done to others. Virtue, then, is vitally needful to the priest, whom even evil men expect to be good. (Fanchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, p. 48.)
Comment: These last two paragraphs just said NOTHING – just more verbiage citing everyone from “coaches at Penn State” to ”fellow shipmates” – piling up more dung on an already bloated dung heap! If it gets one more scoop of excrement piled on, it’ll qualify for its own zip code!
Priests have a special obligation to avoid even the appearance of scandal, no less to serve as instruments of temptation "if things go too far" by telling him he should go to confession and be "more prudent next time." And it is to try to make amends for my ill-considered and undeserved support of Bishop Petko and the harm thus done to souls and the needless divisions engendered at Saint Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church that I hope that this report, in which I have taken no glee at all, will help at least one soul in the future from making the same mistake. This last sentence did it! Call the post office: we have a new zip code! (but it looks like more of the same dung you piled on earlier. Did you recycle it?). You have “taken no glee at all”? Yes you have. In fact, a triumphant “cat-who-swallowed-the-canary” smirk is more like it! Dr. D, you make an embarrassingly BAD liar!
Look, you mendacious moron: how is a priest “telling someone to go to confession and to be more prudent next time” constitute an instrument of temptation? By the way, Droleskey, YOU had better go to confession and be more prudent the next time for all those lies you have been spewing out here!
This has all happened within the Providence of God, Who brings good out of evil. This is a terrible but well-deserved chastisement for us all. We must accept it as such, recognizing the truth of every situation will be revealed clearly only on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead. But the truth of every situation will be revealed on that Last Day and no amount of spinning and denial in this life can avoid that terrible moment in which the falsehoods that have been told to excuse and/or to cover-up our own sins and scandalous behavior can conceal that revelation from taking place [That’s the most eloquent piece of self-condemnation I’ve heard since – thirty seconds ago!]. And that is the only thing that matters. Nothing else. Nothing else at all. Truth may not prevail here in this passing, mortal vale of tears. It will prevail on the Last Day, which means that we must keep uppermost in our mind's eye the simple truth that today, this very day, might be our "last day" and the day upon which we are to face the particularly terrible moment for us of the Particular Judgment.
Comment: You’re an unbelievable wretch! When will you stop?!
We must recall as well that nothing anyone says about us or does to us and causes us to suffer is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer during His Passion and Death and that caused those swords of sorrow to be pierced through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must forgive others as we are forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, thanking God abundantly for our persecutors and detractors as they are the means He has chosen from all eternity for us to be chastised and humiliated before men so that our disordered self-love can be beaten out of us as we learn how to bend more willingly and lovingly to His Holy Will in every situation in which we find ourselves.
Comment: The hypocrisy here defies comment!
This terrible matter is a cross for everyone involved. Everyone. The man, however, who is unwilling to admit, no less to reform, behavior that gives the appearance of scandal and causes needless injury to the souls of others, especially the young and the vulnerable, who is responsible for the suffering that has been caused in recent weeks is named Paul Petko. He alone bears responsibility for this entire matter.
Comment: You lousy, lying wretch! You wouldn’t even give the man a chance to be heard! God help you!
In this world of such evil in which we have played our own roles [yours above all, wretch!] on so many occasions, may we continue to live as penitentially as possible as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including the sins of the conciliarists against the Faith and of anyone in the underground church in this time of apostasy and betrayal who dares to grow righteously indignant when actions that are indeed quite serious to God come to public light. We cannot minimize sin and get to Heaven. While we must be charitable to our fellow erring sinners, the most charitable thing that can be done for one who gives signs of predatory behavior is to remonstrate with him that he must cease his actions at once lest we become his accomplices in his future sins.
Comment: God have mercy on you, you bastard! I choose that word (bastard) advisedly, because you are illegitimate – at least in God’s eyes (and before any narrow-minded Puritans castigate me for choosing a “bad word,” the word has its origins in both Middle English and Old French, dating back perhaps a thousand years or more). After assassinating a man’s character in the most vindictive, sadistic manner possible, you talk about being “charitable”?!! What kind of monster are you??!! What did you pick for your confirmation name, Dr. D – Iscariot? There aren’t enough abysmal words in the dictionary to describe what kind of scum-sucking bottom-feeder you are -- an incarnate insult to the species homo sapiens. But here are a few more monikers that come to mind: traitor, liar, opportunist, coward, ego-maniac, back-stabber, moral leper -- but most of all, hypocrite.
And to crown his monumental hypocrisy, Droleskey has the hubris and the audacity to finish off his assassin’s job with his trademark mini-Litany. For those narrow-minded fools who fall for such ostentation, grab your popcorn and enjoy the show; for the rest of us, we’ll just grab our barf-bags once again:
May the Rosaries we pray each day help to bring about the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Pope Saint Clement I, pray for us.
Saint Felicitas, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
(Final) Comment: See also: A Litany of Sinners, with Droleskey at the top of the list – where he has beat out the following villains for the top spot: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, the Wicked Witch of the West, Attila the Hun, a junkyard dog, Chelsea Clinton’s plastic surgeon, Uriah Heap, Wile E. Coyote, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s orthodontist, Medusa, Cinderella’s step-sisters, Ivan the Terrible, Casper the Friendly Stool Sample, Jack the Ripper, Jack the Dripper (Kevorkian), Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, the Marquis de Sade, Phyllis Diller’s hairdresser, and Barack Obama (not necessarily all in that order).
At long last, Droleskey’s sick diatribe comes to a close! To this tongue-in-cheek “litany of sinners,” one could add another litany – a more serious one: a litany of epithets for the dastardly doctor -- almost endless in length -- to describe how LOW humanity can sink. But one does not need a litany to describe him; he can be summed up in one phrase: NO CHARITY – for he lacks that one essential ingredient in charity: compassion. The man has plenty of God-given intelligence, but no compassion – and hence, no wisdom -- because to be a truly wise person, one must be a good person – a person of compassion and conscience, neither of which he has. He has the appearance of humility, but the reality of pride. He purports to discern right from wrong, but in reality is incapable of distinguishing one from the other.
One might assume, though, that even if Droleskey has no conscience, he at least might have some sense of shame for what he has done. But no, that is invariably not the case, for conscience and shame usually take the same exit path. One who without conscience is incapable of feeling shame. The only thing that people like that fear is exposure – the eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not get caught.” The truth is, he will get caught – and so will Ramolla; and, as always happens when people wrongfully desire something, everything that they have coveted will slip away; and they will be left with nothing.
And that is just what is happening: Droleskey, who has worn out his welcome at just about every traditional church group that he’s been “affiliated” with (make that “interfered” with), is doing a splendid job of dismantling his Bavarian protégé’s parish. Although only Ramolla and Droleskey are the ones opening their mouths and on the attack, their actions are hastening their demise: people are leaving SAG left and right – especially the major donors. Collections are way down, and people are starting to see the truth through the lies. Droleskey and Ramolla, by their own words and actions, will have single-handedly (okay, double-handedly) destroyed SAG. Ramolla will get his miter, but he will be reigning over an empty episcopacy; and Droleskey will have burned yet another bridge. No traditional cleric will trust this back-stabber ever again.
Dr. Do-Nothing has attempted to “wear down” the reader with voluminous “evidence” that is NOT evidence at all but merely literary flatulence – a complete pack of hot air and lies – and he does it with all the hubris and gall of a six-pack of foxes in a house of convalescent hens. The man’s ego and evil are in a class by themselves. He demands answers from people – even from priests and bishops; and when they don’t instantly give him what he demands, he accuses them of “non-cooperation.” That is what happened to Bp. Petko and the Ritters: when they did not “obey” him, he put them on his “hit list.”
The man claims to have “no vendetta” against Bp. Petko, while all the while he is looking for every conceivable shred of “dirt” with which to bury him – even insignificant tidbits of no consequence or importance. It is glaringly obvious to a child that Droleskey is on a witch-hunt. Then, after systematically assassinating the man’s character, he belches forth with phony, condescending “charity.” This man, who is almost hatred personified, has the audacity to use the word “charity”? Droleskey, you need a psychiatrist, or an exorcist – or both.
If one had unlimited time and energy, he could at least double this article’s length, because there is a lie in virtually every sentence that Droleskey writes – but there just isn’t the time to chase down each and every one of them. The whole thing is an edifice of lies -- a lie in every nook and cranny --carpeted with wall-to-wall hypocrisy. The man is evil almost to the point of insanity (It would be better if he were insane, for this would mitigate his culpability). He certainly hasn’t any conscience or compassion -- but he certainly is a master of sanctimony and duplicity. Droleskey, who revels in taking quotations and passages from Scripture, should read – and heed -- this one:
If I speak in the tongue] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
That’s what you are, Droleskey: NOTHING. May God have mercy on your miserable, wretched soul.