Saturday, April 28, 2012

Hypocrites Will Be Hypocrites

The last Lay pulpit article, Oh What a Tangled Web It Was – and Is, drew another comment (as did a previous article) from a reader who goes by the moniker “Simply Catholic.”  I need to thank “Simply Catholic,” for he gives me another opportunity (and reason) to bring up a subject that needs to be repeated and reinforced every now and then – Hypocrisy.  “Simply Catholic” accusingly labels this writer as “abominable” and “obsessed” for (presumably) what this writer has said about clerics Daniel Dolan, Anthony Cekada, and Markus Ramolla.

And his reasons for condemning this writer are (presumably) that these men are Alteri Christi (or, as he put it, “priests nevertheless”) and therefore “off limits” as far as having any criticism leveled against them – the time-worn, threadbare “Alter Christus” argument.  According to this non-logic, one could not say anything against Martin Luther or Rasputin, because they were “priests nevertheless”; and Christ, Our Lord Himself, could not (and ought not) have leveled any criticism against the Scribes and Pharisees, because they were the “priests nevertheless” of their day.  When will this illogical notion be dispelled?!

The sad thing is that people like “Simply Catholic” don’t practice what they preach.  He has oceans of respect and concern for the “reputations” of Bp. Dolan and Frs. Cekada and Ramolla – but where is his sympathy for Bp. Paul Petko and Fr. Bernard Hall?  Why the selective concern?  Why is not his “respect for the clergy” uniformly applied?  That’s because he is probably one of the three aforementioned men himself or one of their ardent supporters (actually, it’s the latter), and he’s afraid of the truth coming out – so he invokes the Alter Christus “clause.”

That is the ploy that all scoundrels use when they don’t want the truth to get out.  They have no valid arguments to give themselves – no facts, no evidence, no truth to offer -- so they try to silence their opposition with “guilt-trip” name-calling, labeling their adversaries as “abominable” or ”slanderous” for daring to speak out against the evil of latter-day Pharisees.  They know that they can’t refute what is said, so they employ the old “ignore the message and shoot the messenger” tactic.  They have no defense, so they rely on offense.  Again, when will this illogical (and blatantly fallacious) notion be dispelled?

The fact is that this moronic notion will never be completely dispelled, because there will always be a pool of narrow-minded people who will fall for this illogical tripe – especially the “don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts” contingent whose steel-trap minds are already made up and who are afraid to “open up their minds and let the sun shine in.”  They’ll unhesitatingly believe unfounded hearsay (as many did concerning the false charges against Bp. Petko), yet label the hard truth as “calumny and detraction.”

One who is truly logical (and intellectually honest) must keep an open mind.  Unfortunately, this is all too often a rare commodity in “traddie-land” these days.  So many, once they take a position, will stubbornly stick to it (and brook no other); they are too proud to admit that they are (or have been) wrong.  They’ll never change because they don’t want to change.  And, like the Pharisee in the parable, they’ll take the phony “moral high ground” and disdainfully look down their noses at those “publicans” who dare to expose the truth about bad men; yet they’ll swallow baseless lies leveled against good men.  They’ll let bad priests “hide behind the collar,” yet vilify good priests, simply because their allegiance is to the former and not the latter.  And because of that allegiance, they’ll be too proud to admit to the truth and change their position, because this makes them “look bad.”  What they fail to see is that if one is to have “respect for the collar,” it must be uniformly applied, not selectively doled out in a pick-and-choose manner.

But the whole idea of not speaking against someone because he is “a man of the cloth” is itself pure hogwash – and wrong.  It is, in fact, sinful.  God’s commandments are for everyone; everyone, whether lay or clergy, is subject to them.  No one is exempt.  Those fools who think otherwise would do well to consider what happened with Vatican II.  If no one spoke out against those “priests nevertheless” who promulgated its errors, then there would be no traditional Catholicism today at all; and the errors of these evil priests (and bishops and cardinals) would go on unabated.  Come on, “Simply Catholic”!  When will it “sink in” that no one is above the law – especially God’s law!  When will this realization penetrate your skull?

Sadly, good men have been vilified throughout the ages for standing up for good and opposing evil.  One – the God-Man -- was crucified for it.  And, sadly, as long as there are people like “Simply Catholic” around, this (unfortunately) will continue.  Let us hope and pray that such attitudes will be eradicated in time.  One thing for sure: “Simply Catholic’s” comments will not deter this writer from getting the truth out; it will only strengthen the writer’s resolve.  And speaking of “resolve,” I would like to direct the reader’s attention to a website – Athanasius Seminary, Inc. -- whose title, interestingly enough, is printed in pink (perhaps to commemorate “National Breast Cancer Awareness Month”?).  It exposes -- in a subtle and highly humorous way -- Fr. Ramolla’s “agenda.”  In closing, let us hope that “Simply Catholic” (and people like him) will, in future, confine their comments to the facts -- and skip the accusatory histrionics – because, as this writer told “Simply Catholic” once before, what he is doing is simply un-Catholic.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Oh What a Tangled Web it Was – and Is

Lay Pulpit was originally set up to warn the Catholic reading public about rogue traditional clergy, especially those at SGG (St. Gertrude the Great Church, in West Chester, Ohio).  Many who were parishioners there were mistreated, maligned, and dispossessed by its pastor and his assistant, Daniel Dolan and Anthony Cekada.  These parishioners, almost half of SGG’s congregation at the time, broke away to form a new congregation, St. Albert the Great (SAG), which eventually got situated in Fairfield, Ohio.

SAG’s pastor, Fr. Markus Ramolla, a young German priest ordained by Daniel Dolan, was himself ousted by the SGG clergy (although to say that they “victimized” him would be going too far; he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and he took advantage of the situation); and it was he who was chosen by SGG’s “refugees” to be their new pastor.  The new parish started out with high hopes and expectations, and all thought that Fr. Ramolla would be a welcome change from the thieving and lying of Dolan and Cekada.  Sadly, this has not turned out to be the case.  Ramolla has turned out to be a “clone” of his former mentors at SGG, just as bad as they – and perhaps worse.

For those who read Lay Pulpit, you have no doubt noticed that this column has been fairly silent for some time; there are reasons for this.  First, events at SAG during the past year and a half have been in a pretty “liquid” state – and going from bad to worse.  Though most of SAG’s parishioners were unaware of the deterioration going on, a few were – especially two of SAG’s board members.  They noticed a couple of things: first, Fr. Bernard Hall, Fr. Ramolla’s assistant, was not receiving a salary – a salary authorized and approved by SAG’s board. 

Then there was the “immigration visa” problem.  Fr. Hall, like Ramolla, is a foreign national; he is British, and residing in England.  His emigration to the U.S. was under the sponsorship of SAG, with Fr. Ramolla overseeing it.  Ramolla’s sponsorship was also by SAG, as were the sponsorships of two foreign seminarians attached to SAG.  The problem is that the visas of both Fr. Ramolla and the seminarians got speedily approved, while Fr. Hall’s seemed to be making no progress at all.

The two board members called these two problems – salary and immigration – to Fr. Ramolla’s (and the SAG board’s) attention; and they in fact called a special board meeting to address them.  At the board meeting, both Fr. Ramolla and the board’s treasurer pretended tat they had been unaware that Fr. Hall wasn’t being paid.  And when Fr. Ramolla was questioned about the progress (actually, the lack thereof) of Fr. Hall’s visa application, he tried to lie his way out of that too.  At the meeting, the board voted (once again) to pay Fr. Hall his salary (but it was cut to $200 a week, hardly enough to sustain anybody); and to as for the visa process, Fr. Hall took charge of that himself.

The irony about both the salary and the visa, by the way, is that neither has happened (some money was sent to Fr. Hall, but it consisted of “ordination gifts” and Mass stipends, which both Ramolla and SAG’s treasurer have since tried to interpret as “salary”).  And speaking of “salary,” some of Ramolla’s apologists might point out that “Fr. Ramolla only received a salary of $1000 a month.”  Yes, but his salary was basically pocket money, for he had all his expenses (room and board, travel expenses, even a new car) paid for by the parish; plus, he received $1600 a month in stipends from SAG’s satellite chapels in Columbus and Urbana, Ohio.  

Meanwhile, Fr. Hall is still stuck in England, surviving off the charity of his 94-year old mother, and waiting -- probably in vain – for his visa to come through (who knows what Ramolla has done “behind the scenes” to torpedo it).  One thing that Ramolla definitely did do “behind the scenes” was to feed Bp. Slupski a pack of lies about Fr. Hall’s salary: the night of November 16, 2011, when Bp. Slupski was invited to SAG to confer confirmations, he gave a talk to the church audience; and in that speech, he stated that it “was wrong to pay a man $350 for saying one Mass a week.”  This was an obvious reference to Fr. Hall, whom Ramolla had told Slupski was being paid that for “saying one Mass a week.” 

What Slupski didn’t know was that Fr. Hall hadn’t been paid anything at all (and received only one or two $200 payments after the aforementioned board meeting, after which the payments ceased).  Ramolla simply failed to mention that part; he only told him what he wanted him to hear – and what he wanted that night’s church audience to hear.  I guess he never foresaw this article being written -- but liars never think about the consequences of the webs they weave; they just make it up as they go along and hope that nobody finds out.  (Let me point out also that this is not the first time that Ramolla has lied – nor will it be the last.  During the past year, he tried his best to make those who opposed him “look bad” – especially opposing board members; and now he is doing the same with SAG’s new, current board members, trying to make them out as villains and himself as a martyr – a trademark Ramolla strategy).

Also at this same meeting, another “issue” surfaced.  But before mentioning it, a bit of preliminary explanation is needed: first, when Fr. Hall left SGG, he had not yet been ordained.  That came later, when the parish got Bishop Paul Petko to ordain him.  Bp. Petko was also retained by SAG to perform other episcopal duties as well (confirmations, etc.); he was to be “their bishop.”  Another piece that must be mentioned too is that Fr. Ramolla decided some months earlier to start a seminary -- which was a surprise (and to many an unwelcome one) for SAG’s parishioners.  It seems that several seminarians “appeared out of nowhere” to create this need – at a time when SAG was trying to scrape together a down payment on the property they were currently leasing with intent to buy.  Because of this, the added burden of a seminary was not viewed favorably by many of SAG’s parishioners.

However, they (for the most part) reluctantly acquiesced and went along with it.  By the way, the seminary candidates didn’t “appear out of nowhere”; they were, in fact, stolen from CMRI’s Mater Dei Seminary.  It turns out that one of SAG’s parishioners was a former seminarian there, where he was once the roommate of one of those new candidates.  Most of SAG’s parishioners were unaware of this.  It seems that it had been one of Fr. Ramolla’s ambitions for some time to start and run a seminary; and it turns out that he also had another long-seeded secret ambition: to become a bishop.

So, with that as backdrop, we are now prepared to mention the other “issue” that surfaced at the board meeting.  Because SAG had retained Bp. Petko as its bishop, he was “in the way” of Ramolla’s own episcopal aspirations – but how to get him out of the way?  Simple: create some sort of “scandal” involving Bp. Petko.  But how to do that?  Enter, stage left (as in left-handed, i.e., sinister), Dr. Thomas Droleskey, the pedantic (i.e., boring, sanctimonious, and long-winded), self-proclaimed expert on everything “ecclesiastical” (even though his degree is in political science, not theology).  With the not-so-good doctor’s assistance, charges of “inappropriate behavior” by Bp. Petko with one of the seminarians were trumped up.  For “good effect,” Fr. Ramolla went into a theatrical “tirade” against Bp. Petko; and Droleskey wrote a fifty-plus page tract against him, giving his “proof” of the bishop’s “misbehavior.”

The only problem here is that there was no actual proof, only unsubstantiated assertions (which shall be shown to be completely false).  Droleskey’s “evidence” was based on testimony from two of the seminarians (and the aforementioned former seminarian) – testimony that was almost verbatim identical to words published in a “fact sheet” written by Droleskey.  In his fifty-plus page article, entitled Retracting Support for Paul Petko, Droleskey cited the Archdiocese of Indianapolis (Msgr. Schaedel et al) as saying Bp. Petko was guilty of “inappropriate” behavior.  They were contacted; they denied it emphatically: there was no wrongdoing or “inappropriate behavior” on his part whatsoever.  Droleskey’s article also cited “evidence” from a family with whom Bp. Petko had dealings.  They not only denied it, but they challenged Droleskey and others to deny and retract it; no such retraction (or any reply at all) ever came.  Lastly, Droleskey stated that one of the seminarians had been “groomed” by Bp. Petko into perverted behavior.

The only problem with this last lie is that this seminarian had only had verbal contact with Bp. Petko a total of about fourteen hours – hardly enough time to get “groomed.”  The reason that Droleskey made this charge was to “de-fuse” an incriminating letter (see Addendum 1, at the end of this article) that this seminarian had sent to Bp. Petko, Droleskey claiming that it was the result of his having been “groomed” by Petko to do so, and consequently to “appear” homosexual.  But what really puts the lie to that is this: this same seminarian also wrote another love letter – make that a love poem (see Addendum 2) – to that former seminarian I mentioned earlier – several months before either of them met Bp. Petko (or even knew of his existence!).  Explain that one away, Dr. D!!!  The love letter and love poem are in an addendum at the end of this article.  I am sure that the reader will agree that they are disgusting – and have “homosexual” written all over them.  I am also confident that – for those who are rational creatures – this letter and poem are more than enough evidence to completely blow the credibility of these lying seminarians – and their nefarious coach, Droleskey.

But why would all of these men do and say what they did?  “What was their motive?” one might counter.  For Ramolla, it was his “scarlet fever” -- his blind ambition to become bishop.  This is also his reason for him doing what he did to Fr. Hall (to keep him in England and “starve him out”), because he saw Fr. Hall as a potential rival for pastor and miter (although Fr. Hall would not accept the miter if offered).  Fr. Hall was much more personable than Ramolla and much more well liked by SAG’s parishioners.  In fact, he was well liked and respected by people around the world.  His “Breviary” website enjoys a world-wide readership, and he is known far and wide as a man of good will.  Not only that, his scholastic (and personal) credentials far exceed those of Ramolla – a former gardener’s assistant and a product of Sanborn’s malformed MHT “seminary.”  The rank and file of SAG would have much preferred Fr. Hall as their pastor (and bishop) over the moribund Bavarian; therefore, he – like Bp. Petko -- “had to go” as well.

For Droleskey, his motive was his desire to prop up his flagging Christ or Chaos readership by adding a little “spice” to it (that, plus he seems to have this “need” to be wherever there is a bishop).  For the seminarians, who earned a reputation as trouble-makers at CMRI’s Mater Dei Seminary – and at least one whom is a flaming homosexual – their motive was a chance to start life afresh, with a “clean slate.”  For all of them to do it at the expense of an innocent man – Bp. Petko – is understandable: for those with no conscience, this is an easy enough thing to do.  However, I would not want to be one of them, when it comes time to meet my Maker!

So, what it is the outcome of their concerted conspiratorial effort?  What have they accomplished for themselves?  For Droleskey, he has left SAG -- although still living in the area.  I guess that, now that he has destroyed SAG, he can’t show his face there anymore.  The latest rumor is that his readership is down and that he’s hurting for money.  Perhaps people are waking up to the fact that there is more chaos in his Christ or Chaos, and that it should actually be called Diatribing for Dollars. Ramolla – with Droleskey’s “help” -- has reduced SAG, both demographically and monetarily, to near zero (and, of course, has blamed everyone but himself for this).  Membership is down to a handful of hard-core faithful (make that hard-core gullible); and collections are about a fifth of what they were.  As a “stimulus package,” these two are the equivalent of rigor mortis.

So, how will SAG survive?  Ramolla has (supposedly) informed SAG’s parishioners of his intention to resign, and then go on to Louisville, Ky. to join a church congregation down there.  However, when contacted, they (Louisville) had no knowledge of this – plus, they wouldn’t have him if he did come.  It seems that this was just a “smoke-screen” rumor put out by Ramolla to keep the SAG folks guessing (they, in turn, have, been shopping around at CMRI for a replacement for him).  Probably what he is actually doing is to keep his “seminary” (make that brothel) up here, i.e., at the property that SAG currently occupies – and that he’ll pay for it with funds donated from one of his more particularly gullible followers. 

Whether SAG will survive as an entity is not known.  If it does, it will have precious few of its faithful left as parishioners, since most of SAG’s board members have resigned; and the rest of the parishioners are pretty much in a state of confusion as to what the future holds.  Of course, as is the case at SGG, there will still be that hard-core, “don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts” remnant who will follow Ramolla, no matter what.  Like unfledged sparrows with mouths wide open, they’ll continue to swallow whatever swill he feeds them; whatever he says, they’ll fall for it -- like an egg from a tall chicken.  They’ll find a way to explain everything away, even to the point of trying to make him look like a martyr (which he does a pretty good job of doing himself).

In an effort to make him look meek and humble, some of Ramolla’s apologists might claim that he is not going for the episcopacy.  For those who still cling to such wishful notions, I wish to bring to their attention that the “Conraternity of St. Albert the Great” has recently been invoiced (by Pay Pal) for an “antique gold brocade” bishop’s miter purchased on E-Bay for one Markus Ramolla, for a price of $860 (plus $18.95 shipping and handling).  Are you still unconvinced?

Now one (especially one of Ramolla’s apologists) might ask, “Well, all of this that you say about Ramolla -- why are you bringing it all out now?  Why have you waited so long?  Why didn’t you mention it before?”  Well, there were several reasons for not “opening up” until now.  First, it is natural for people – especially traditional Catholics who have that “Alter Christus” mentality about their priest – to think that he is of good will.  Ramolla’s aberrant behavior was explained away, at least at first, as that of a “young and immature priest making honest mistakes”  -- and the temptation was to “give him a decent chance” in the hope that “he’d turn himself around.”  So nothing was said.  A second reason for not saying anything until now is simply that things have been in such a “liquid” state, with things changing so quickly, that it was almost impossible to give an accurate and coherent picture of what was going on (and where things were headed).

But the last (and most important) reason for not “blowing the whistle” right away has to do with the way Fr. Hall’s visa process was handled: as stated earlier, his visa was in the hands of Fr. Ramolla; hence, Fr. Hall -- alone and away in England -- was totally dependent on Fr. Ramolla taking care of it: "at his mercy," so to speak.  As time went on, Fr. Hall suspected that Ramolla was “ignoring” him (not paying him, plus dropping hints that “Fr. Hall ought to remain in England”); but there was little he could do about it.  He (or anyone else) could not speak out against Ramolla for fear that the latter might “torpedo” his visa application – so nothing was said.  Eventually, Fr. Hall (and a few of SAG’s more perceptive parishioners) realized that Ramolla was totally “up to no good”: a “fox-in-charge” of the SAG “hen-house.”  It is now painfully apparent that keeping silent was no longer the thing to do (nor was it ever) – so, now it’s coming out.

In his reckless ambition, Ramolla has done much collateral damage.  The damage to SAG can be undone: former dispossessed parishioners can pick up the pieces and start anew, out only their money.  But for Bp. Petko, the damage is potentially irreparable.  Ramolla and Droleskey have smeared this innocent man’s reputation immeasurably – and how is that bell to be un-rung?  Or, to use a more fitting metaphor, how are all those feathers to be retrieved and put back in that opened pillow?  We can start by getting the truth out, at least via the internet.  This writer will certainly do that.  What has been revealed here is a start, yet but a “thumb-nail sketch” (although more than adequate for anyone with even half a brain).  But for the “don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts” crowd, more will come (not all people are rational, you must understand).  Suffice it to say that Bp. Petko will be vindicated, and his accusers indicted.

Ramolla’s evil is known to many – who know of even more indiscretions committed by him than what has been revealed here; but they have kept silent, in the interest of “discretion.”  Such “discretion” is hogwash!  What about Bp. Petko?  Is he to be sacrificed on the altar of “discretion”?!!  A pall of suspicion hangs over this innocent man’s head, because of the slander against him that has been disseminated (literally) throughout the world.  Is this slander to go unchallenged and unanswered?  Are we to keep mum, so that Ramolla can “train” and ordain his bunch of perverts and unleash their poison on yet more unsuspecting victims?  I hope not.  Those of us who so far have been “a lonely cry in the desert” will continue to do our part to put Ramolla – and Droleskey – out of business.  But it’s time for others who now know the truth to join in and do their part as well.  For starters, a good many owe Bp. Petko an apology.

All during the past year, Fr. Ramolla has weaved his tangled web, doing his damage and then blaming it on others – but it is catching up with him.  The new board, thoroughly in Ramolla’s corner when picked to replace those of us who opposed him, now finds itself in the same foxhole as we.  They have found out that, for instance, things that they tell him in confidence, he then blabs to the parish, twisting what was said in such a way that they (the board) are the “bad guys” and he is the victim – his trademark modus operandi.  But each time he does this, he loses yet even more supporters, paints himself deeper into a corner, and loses yet more credibility – the tangled web gets even more tangled.  Markus, I think that it’s time for you to go back to Bavaria, and see if you can get your old “gardener’s assistant” job back!

ADDENDUM 1: The following letter was written by one of Ramolla’s seminarians to Bp. Petko.  It is excerpted from an e-mail dated October 16, 2011.  The seminarian’s name has been removed.  Both it and the original e-mail are in the possession of Bp. Petko, who can produce it in a court of law if needed.  Here is the letter:

Dear Bishop Petko,

 Blessed be the infinite love of God, our Creator and Redeemer!

  When I am clasped in your arms and your heart is pressed to mine, I somewhat wonder why I feel so happy and fulfilled. Then I remember that God created man for love. "Amare et amari." If it is a joy to embrace and be embraced by you in this vale of tears, what must it be like to embrace Jesus in the glory of heaven? I long for that moment.
 The other night I almost wanted to hold on to you forever (yet my conscience tells me that there should be a prudent time limit) and just cry for happiness and past sorrow. I think it is our past experiences that helps bond us together in affection. Some wounds go deep and a hug is a salutary remedy and in many circumstances expresses feelings better than words. The knowledge that you are cared for and appreciated by another is one of the most consoling thoughts. It is surprisingly and wonderfully different that you, a bishop unlike so many other clerics we have known, do not spurn embraces and healthy physical contact.
  I just pray that my affections are kept ordinate. I am afraid that in the past I have let them grow out of proportion. Maybe an effect of my affection deprivation at Holy Cross Seminary. Well, at least one definite good thing came upon my at HCS: the desire to become a saint, to love God very much and to follow His holy will to the best of my ability. I pray you, dear father, to direct and guide my soul in the way of perfection, the way trod by the saints. And I thank you sincerely for your fatherly care and affection for me. I love you, father!
Let us aid each in this life's exile toward heaven, our only true home. I commend you to Our Lady's maternal heart!

With my devotion, XXXXXXX

ADDENDUM 2: Here is the poem, titled The Vigil.  It was sent to Bp. Petko (by this same seminarian) on October 15, 2011; but, as you can see, it was written (by the seminarian’s own admission) back in January – long before this seminarian ever met (or knew of) Bp. Petko.  The person for whom this was written was (at the time) the seminarian’s roommate at CMRI’s Mater Dei Seminary.  As before, I have X’d out his name.  Again, since this was from an e-mail, its existence can be legally established.  Here it is:

I wrote this back in January for XXXXXX.

  A Vigil

Sleep, sleep,my friend, I will not disturb you from your slumber,
Sleep, sleep, is this the only refuge from your anguish?
Yet as I gaze upon your face it still tells me of sorrow,
Some dark cloud has settled over your brow and has deepened your
age beyond your natural years,
As I gaze upon your face I feel in my heart pity and love.

Does the past still haunt you?
Does God still call you?
Do present trials daunt you?
Will new ills befall you?

Sleep, sleep while I this vigil keep,
And pray that your mind rests and your heart heals,
Can you forget the past?
And set your mind to rest at last?
Or has your heart been wounded too deep?
Do nightmares and fears disturb your sleep?
You must let go and learn to forgive,
This is the only way to heal, to move on and live,

How long can you wait on the edge of fear and the unkown?
Come now, dispel these doubts; face your fears,
Speak to him, work it out; he is not your foe,
Trust us, your friends; we want to help you solve your woes,
We desire your welfare; we love you truly,
And hold you to our hearts most tenderly.

Shake off these shackles, embrace your destiny,
God has called you to His altar; this I do believe,
If you forsake this path and go astray, I shall grieve,
For I love you and desire your true happiness,
But often I have heard you sigh: "What a mess!"
I see a great turmoil within your breast,
Threatening to destroy you, shrouding you even in rest.

"O God," I pray, "Creator, Redeemer, and Lover of this soul,
Take away this darkness, make him know Thy holy will,
He has consecrated himself to Thee and Thy holy Mother,
Help him, I beg Thee; he is as dear to me as a brother,"
Sleep, sleep, my brother; may peace again reign in your heart,
But for my part, prayer shall be my art.