Sunday, June 10, 2012

The Eleventh and Twelfth “Commandments”

There are two “commandments” which are very much in vogue these days, especially in traddieland:  the “eleventh” and the “twelfth.”  The eleventh, of course, is the one that most everyone recognizes and utters:  “Thou shalt not get caught.”  But there is another “commandment” that is perhaps not so oft-repeated but is fast catching on – let’s call it the twelfth commandment:  “Thou shalt not admit that thou art wrong.”  This twelfth one is closely related to the other, and in fact is usually triggered by the other; and when one is caught breaking the eleventh, he usually invokes the twelfth.  And in doing so, the commandment-breaking culprit usually starts rationalizing, giving reasons why he really hasn’t broken No. 11, thus creating two more complications:  “foot-in-mouth” disease, and “tangled web-weaving” syndrome.  Left untreated, AIDS (Acquired Inevitable Dummkopf Syndrome) can set in, often culminating in a terminal condition known as Stonewallus Intransigentis, aka Cornerus Paintus Intuibus, from which the victim cannot extricate himself – a condition all too prevalent nowadays.

This sort of thing is prevalent throughout humanity, but I think it is especially flourishing in “traddieland,” because traditional Catholicism likes to look upon itself as the self-righteous “keeper of the Holy Grail” -- and can therefore do no wrong.  And when it is caught doing wrong, it cannot and will not admit it, often with unforeseen (and usually embarrassing) results -- case in point: a recent e-mail exchange, to be illustrated forthwith.

A woman (I won’t give her real name, but let’s label her “Pamela”), well-known and respected in traditional Catholic circles, recently sent out an e-mail to a list of people, the e-mail stating that she did not want to receive any more from them.  She claimed that she received too many e-mails as it was, and that she didn’t have time to read them all.  Now this would have been a reasonable request, except that most of the people on that list never sent her any e-mails anyway.  Most of them were receivers, not senders, of e-mails; and hence there was no real reason for her to warn any of them.

Now it turns out that this “Pamela” is a staunch supporter of one Markus Ramolla, the cabbage-patch-gardener-turned-bishop, newly minted by Bp. Slupski.  (Ramolla – or perhaps one of his “supporters” – at first spread the rumor that he was consecrated by a Bishop “Dymek”; the problem here is that the last Bp. Dymek who ever existed died in the 1950’s!).  Anyway, it turns out that none of the people on the distribution of “Pamela’s” e-mail were what one would call “Ramolla supporters.”  In fact, most were people who had been victimized by him.  Conspicuously absent from the “list” were people who were pro-Ramolla (such as Dr. Thomas Droleskey and others who helped in smearing Ramolla’s enemies).

Now this, perhaps, may have just been a coincidence (and perhaps hell just might be in danger of freezing over) -- but both are highly improbable.  One of the recipients of “Pamela’s” e-mail pointed out this “coincidence” to her, suggesting other ulterior motives for her missive, at which point she responded with the aforementioned “explanation.”  She then went on to accuse the aforesaid recipient (let’s label him “Ted”) of “arrogance and absurdity” (for his having presumed to know what she believed or thought), then spring-boarded from there to accuse him of pandering “non-facts and opinions,” then went on to label him and others as “masters of destructive criticism” – perhaps for insinuating that the seminarian who authored a certain letter and poem was a homosexual.  Then, as traddies are often wont to do, she finished her e-mail with the Droleskeyesque “With prayers, in Christ” (which, as all hypocrites well know, is tantamount to a quasi-plenary indulgence, absolving one from the guilt of having slung any mud prior to that point).

“Ted” replied to her e-mail, reminding her first that her reasons (for wanting that aforementioned list of people to no longer send her e-mails) were illogical and hypocritical.  Next, he challenged her claim that “you do not know what I believe or think” by reminding her that she had believed Ramolla’s claims against Bp. Paul Petko, even though she had no proof whatsoever to back up those claims.  “Ted” then went on to point out that the before-mentioned seminarian’s letter (written to Bp. Petko) and poem (written to the seminarian’s one-time roommate) were examined by independent experts (and even by homosexuals themselves), all of whom concluded that the letter and poem were that of a homosexual. 

I should point out here that “Ted’s” reason for mentioning the letter and poem was not so much to claim or insinuate that the seminarian was a homosexual (although they are almost incontrovertible evidence that he is), but more because of what it says about the seminarian’s (lack of) credibility:  Dr. Thomas Droleskey, in his long, accusatory diatribe against Bp. Petko, claimed that this seminarian wrote these things because he was “groomed” by Petko to do so (Droleskey obviously believed the letter to be damning to the seminarian’s credibility; that is why he tried to “explain it away” by attributing it to “grooming”).  The problem with this “theory” is that when the letter was written, Petko and the seminarian had not been acquainted long enough for such “grooming” to have developed; and when the poem was written, that was months before either the seminarian (or his poem’s object) even knew of Petko’s existence

By the way, Droleskey’s assumption that the letter would be “damning” was correct; but (unfortunately for him), when he expounded his bogus “theory,” he didn’t know about the poem at the time.  Thus it was the poem that was the decisive “Achilles heel” that blew both his and the seminarian’s credibility.  Now it might be argued that the letter and the poem are not the equivalent of a “signed confession” or of a “cam-cording of an act of sodomy in front of dozens of witnesses”; but they are certainly more evidence than the zero proof that the seminarian has against Petko.  And in any court of law, they would be adequate proof – and would destroy the seminarian’s credibility.

Now “Pamela” was aware of all of this, yet still believed in Bp. Petko’s “guilt” and the seminarian’s “innocence.”  She even likened the seminarian’s letter and poem to “Saint Paul and Saint John’s” writings.  After chiding “Pamela” for making such an idiotic comparison, “Ted” reminded “Pamela” of other proof of both Droleskey’s and Ramolla’s duplicity, including a bogus charge by Bp. Slupski (obviously based on misinformation given him by Ramolla) that Fr. Bernard Hall was being paid $350 for “saying one Mass a week” when he was in fact not being paid at all (and for doing a hell of a lot more than “saying one Mass a week”).  "Ted" reminded her that he had plenty of evidence to back up his claims – both written and recorded, plus the testimony of dozens of witnesses; and he challenged “Pamela” to produce what evidence she had either against Bp. Petko or in support of Ramolla’s or the seminarian’s claims.

“Ted” then ended his e-mail response by chiding “Pamela” for ending her response with a sanctimonious closing (“With prayers, in Christ”) after having showered him with “lies and derogatory innuendos.”  As one might expect, “Ted’s” e-mail response elicited yet another response from “Pamela” – a short one simply stating that she and he were “speaking a different language and therefore it [was] impossible to communicate rationally” – but she still felt compelled to add, “I’ll continue to pray for you” after that [more sanctimony!].

“Ted” countered this response with a repeated plea that “Pamela” produce proof of her beliefs and contentions, and reminded her that asking for that proof was a reasonable request and did not constitute “speaking a different language and therefore it is impossible to communicate rationally.”  He bade her to either respond to that simply put request for proof, or not to respond at all.

“Pamela,” of course, responded, yet not with any proof, but with a claim that she had “never attributed any guilt to Bp. Petko” and that her “messages referred to allegations made by others” [her italics].  She then chided “Ted” for erroneously claiming that she attributed any guilt to Petko; and she then suggested that “Ted” take “some courses in logic and reading comprehension.”  Whereupon, “Ted” countered by sending her an excerpt of her e-mail (dated Nov. 21, 2011) where she did in fact “attribute guilt” to Bp. Petko: in part of the excerpt, her exact words were, “I have been personally well acquainted, prior to the current troubles, with two of the young men who were victimized by Petko” [her italics].

Now at this point, things really get interesting, because this is where “Pamela” starts getting into her back-peddling, “twelfth commandment” mode:  she claims that in the last sentence of the above paragraph, when she wrote “who were victimized by Petko,” she actually meant to say “who were alleged to be victimized by Petko” [Folks, are you familiar with the term “re-writing history”?].  “Ted,” a little confused, re-asked the question, and was given the same answer, except that this time, “Pamela” – who thought that the adding of the word “alleged” somehow “proved” that she herself hadn’t attributed any guilt to Bp. Petko, entreated him to “stop harping” on this, adding that she owed no one any “proofs of anything.”

At this point, “Ted” re-sent her the excerpt from that Nov. 21, 2011 e-mail – except this time, more of it – which included several more instances of her – not “others” -- accusing Bp. Petko, including the following:  “The situation is nuanced and complex? A bishop abuses young men.  They report him. The pastor and rector of the seminary dismisses the bishop.  What's nuanced and complex about that?”  And then there’s this one:  “Delicate and sensitive?  You said it!  The delicate and sensitive souls of young men have been crushed by a perverted old man.”  “Ted” then asked “Pamela” how she was going to “explain away” these additional allegations by her – allegations that she professed never to have made.  “Ted” then entreated her to “stop lying, and stop being a hypocrite.”

Well, folks, this is where “Pamela” went into her final “shutdown” mode, Stonewallus Intransigentis, aka Cornerus Paintus Intuibus, from which she will inevitably not be able to extricate herself.  Her final reply was simply, “I don’t have time for fruitless discussion.”  (Right on, sister!  As they say, “She who lies and runs away, lives to lie another day!”).  At this point, “Ted” – realizing that any further at reasoning with “Pamela” would be fruitless, stopped things there.  Besides, he also realized that “Pamela” suffers (in addition to her other maladies) from Lastworditis, a condition common to traddies of her ilk.

This article, by the way, is not written to publicly embarrass “Pamela” (she’s done a good enough job of that all by herself).  That is why, for discretion’s sake, both his and her names have been changed.  The intent of this article is rather to illustrate some (all too) typical “traddie” behavior, for there are (all too) many “Pamelas” out there.  Of course, many readers can probably guess who “Ted” is (and perhaps who “Pamela” is as well).  But the important thing is not who these two people are, but what was said in their exchange.

“Pamela,” by the way, was once a close friend of “Ted,” the latter being a board member of SAG (St. Albert the Great Church) at the time.  “Pamela’s” e-mail of Nov. 21, 2011 has to do with the controversy going on there (at SAG) at the time.  Prior to that, “Pamela” wanted to know from “Ted” and two others “what the heck is going on,” as she put it, at SAG (the two others, also her friends, being another SAG board member and a board member of SAG’s satellite chapel in Columbus, Ohio).  Being all board members, they were duty-bound not to discuss board business outside of that sphere -- to “air SAG’s dirty laundry,” so to speak.  It was only after Ramolla et al did air that dirty laundry that they responded to her, telling her “what the heck was going on.”

[Editor’s note:  Prior to that point (as just explained), those board members could not speak; so, when queried by “Pamela,” they simply told her that they would explain later.  With what was going on at the time – Ramolla, Droleskey, and the seminarians colluding to frame Bp. Petko for their own ulterior motives (see Oh What a Tangled Web It Was, and other articles) – things were too involved and difficult to explain.  One of the board members conveyed this in a response to “Pamela” by saying that the “situation is nuanced and complex” and “delicate and sensitive” – which is why those phrases reappeared (mockingly and in bold-face type) in “Pamela’s e-mail mentioned a few paragraphs ago.]

So, while those board members were keeping discreetly quiet (for the sake of both the pastor and his parish), the pastor, his “seminarians,’” and Droleskey all preemptively (and collusively) leaked out their “explanation” of what had taken place. “Pamela” chose to believe them.  The board members then gave their proof; yet when it was given (including that found in several Lay Pulpit articles, all of which she has seen), she rejected it out of hand – even though she had absolutely no proof of her own to offer.  She had already made up her mind, thank you, and nothing further was necessary.  I suppose that she thinks, for proof of the “love letter” seminarian’s guilt, a “cam-corded act of sodomy in front of witnesses” is necessary; and anything short of it won’t do – yet she had no trouble in thinking the worst of Bp. Petko, based on no evidence at all.

But this thinking, as intimated before, is all too typical in traddieland: a disbelieving “person A” (“Pamela” in this case), far away and far removed from what is going on, asks for proof from “person B” (“Ted”), who not only is there but is an integral part of it (and who consequently does know what’s going on); then when it is given, person A not only rejects it as inadequate, but also accuses person B of “destructive criticism” for giving it – just as speaking out against Dolan and Cekada’s abuses was dubbed “calumny and detraction” when it was given.  And then when person B reciprocates by asking person A for her proof, person A claims that she doesn’t have to give it (or dismisses it by claiming that she hasn’t the time for “further fruitless discussion”), then walks away in a huff.  How does one deal with that?

Yet “that” is the all-too-typical mindset in traddieland these days.  The people at SGG, for instance, don’t consider expensive junkets to the Bishop’s Lodge to be “out of the ordinary,” even though it is a notorious cesspool of sodomy (and even if it wasn’t, what business do two clerics have in vacationing at a place that costs four hundred bucks a night, at the expense of their scrimping and scraping parishioners?).  But as long as Dolan and Cekada “put on a good show” for them and give them all the externals of Catholicism – impressive rites and rubrics – it seems to matter little to SGG’s parishioners that these two are leading souls astray – especially those young souls who are seeing through filth and the hypocrisy (and who are leaving – and, unfortunately, often losing their faith -- in the process).

The same goes for Ramolla: there are those who have witnessed his duplicity firsthand, but who look past it -- and remain acquiescently quiet about it.  Many are aware of his past womanizing; many who were there at SAG the night Bp. Slupski conferred confirmations are aware of the “salary” misinformation he gave about Fr. Hall; many who at first sided with Ramolla (against those of us who correctly saw his duplicity), eventually (and inevitably) got double-crossed by him themselves; and many are now aware of how he depleted SAG’s “building fund” for his own expenses (including buying himself a $900 miter plus other Episcopal attire).  Yet, in spite of all this, they either do nothing about it (or, in “Pamela’s” case, actually condone it).

And what about the rest of traddieland – those priests who are good men and who are doing God’s work, yet many of whom sit idly by, watching rotten apples like Dolan, Cekada, and Ramolla spoil the barrel, while they do little to nothing about it.  They often condone (or at least do not speak out against) what these men do (yet they look askance at some of those very people who have been victimized by these moral lepers:  Bp. Petko, for instance, is now treated as a sort of pariah -- or at least as “damaged goods”).  To these priests  (and to other high-minded but weak-kneed people), I say, “Do something!”  Acquiescence and non-action in the face of known injustice are tantamount to being an accomplice in that injustice.  Hopefully, people will start to wake up, speak up, and take action (and let’s hope that “Pamela” opens up her eyes as well). They must; otherwise, “traddieland” is headed for oblivion. 

Lastly, in writing these words, the writer fully realizes that they will make probably little to no “dent” in the thinking of people at SGG (nor perhaps those at SAG).  But these words are written not just for them, but also for those folks who may become future prospective victims of people like Dolan, Cekada, and Ramolla.  One last “housekeeping” item: for any “skeptics” in the crowd who require “documentation” that the e-mail discourse between “Pamela” and “Ted” actually took place (and that what was said here actually reflects what was in those e-mails), the following “Appendix 1” recreates – starting with most recent, and going on from there -- the entire e-mail discourse between “Pamela” and “Ted,” with their names given as such, and with some of the other peoples’ names “x’d out” as well (and, for the sake of both “Pamela’s” and “Ted’s” privacy, some brief omissions – duly noted – have been made).

APPENDIX 1 (re-print of recent e-mail):

[Final reply from “Pamela” to “Ted”]:

Sorry, “Ted” - I don't have time for fruitless discussion.

On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:08 PM, “Ted” wrote:


You just don't get it, do you!  Read your e-mail completely through; it repeatedly accuses Bp. Petko of several things.  For your convenience, I have excerpted it here:

I have spoken by phone with both of the young men since the dismissal of Petko.  They are understandably mortified by having allowed their trust in a bishop to lower their guard and permit him to engage repeatedly in extended tight embraces and kisses on the neck.  They now have the courage and grace from God to do all they can to prevent Petko from abusing others.

The situation is nuanced and complex? A bishop abuses young men.  They report him. The pastor and rector of the seminary dismisses the bishop.  What's nuanced and complex about that?

Delicate and sensitive?  You said it!  The delicate and sensitive souls of young men have been crushed by a perverted old man.

Sticky and controversial?  Here I can only guess - power politics?  Father Ramolla acted immediately and correctly but committed the unforgivable crime of failing to obtain Board approval before dismissing Petko?

Or maybe it's the bishop issue?  I learned from another clergyman who is not connected to SAG or the seminary that Petko claimed that Fr. Ramolla was jealous of him and wanted to get rid of him and become a bishop himself.  So Petko is not only a predator but a paranoid?

Confidentiality!  Does anyone think that the young men involved have any obligation to protect Petko's reputation?  For "the good of the Church" maybe?  Isn't it precisely for the good of the Church and souls that Petko should be exposed and banished, as well as suffer a little humiliation for the sake of his own soul?  In addition, do the young men not have a right to confide in their family and friends for some relief of their mental anguish?

What is it that you folks want?  You say you want to save St. Albert's, yet you seem to be doing everything possible to create chaos after the Petko problem was correctly dealt with.

It's over.  Why not stop your strange maneuvering and just allow God to calm the stormy waters among all who are suffering?  Or do you want to play God?   ;-)

“Pamela,” how are you going to explain all of the foregoing away?  “Pamela,” the words speak for themselves.  You tell me to stop "harping," yet you do the self-same thing.  “Pamela,” you've been caught "with your hand in the cookie jar," and now you're trying to get out of it by accusing me of "harping" and by saying that you "don't have time for further talk."  “Pamela,” I am not "harping," as you put it; I'm only trying to show you in black and white that you have lied -- several times.  You're playing a losing hand, “Pamela.”  So, stop lying, and stop being a hypocrite.


From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: xxxx, and xxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxx

Yes, “Ted,” I agree that my email of Nov. 21 said "...were victimized..." and as I said below, that should have been "...were alleged to be victimized..."  Nonetheless, I do not think the young men are liars.  Nor do I need to offer anybody proofs of anything.  I was not present to witness anything with my own eyes, and neither were you.  You believe what you choose - and you can't prove that what you believe is true.  So stop harping on this, because the discussion is over - I don't have time for further talk.


On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:24 PM, “Ted” wrote:

“Pamela”, your first sentence in your last response was, "I have never attributed guilt to Bp. Petko" [your emphasis and italics].  Please compare that statement with what you said in your Nov. 21, 2011 e-mail.


From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: : xxxx, and xxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxx

Hey, “Ted” my mistake - I meant:  "...who were alleged to be victimized by Petko..."


On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:16 AM, “Ted” wrote:

“Pamela,” the following is excerpted from what you wrote in your e-mail of November 21, 2011:

I have been personally well acquainted, prior to the current troubles, with two of the young men who were victimized by Petko - not just by telephone or email.  

Earlier this year, one of the young men spent five days in the Milwaukee area, visiting my home each day, as well as talking many hours while driving to churches and places of interest, having lunch, etc.   I am totally convinced of this man's absolute truthfulness, integrity and dedication to God.  He would never lie or do anything to harm another person.

Regarding the second young man, I've known his entire family more than two years.  On two separate occasions the family spent several days in the Milwaukee area, and the women of the family stayed overnight at my house, with all the others coming to visit several times.  The second young man's brother and sister are part of our little St. Martin of Tours Mission.  Here again, I am totally convinced of the absolute truthfulness, integrity and dedication to God of every member of this family.  

I have spoken by phone with both of the young men since the dismissal of Petko.  They are understandably mortified by having allowed their trust in a bishop to lower their guard and permit him to engage repeatedly in extended tight embraces and kisses on the neck.  They now have the courage and grace from God to do all they can to prevent Petko from abusing others.

“Pamela,” if you do not consider that to be attributing guilt to Bp. Petko, then YOU are the one who needs courses in logic and reading comprehension (as well as Rational Thinking).


From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: xxxx and xxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: xxxxxxxxxx

Dear “Ted,”

I have never attributed guilt to Bp. Petko.  My messages referred to allegations made by others, but I never said I agreed with them.  Again, you assume that you know what I think.  Since I never attributed guilt to Bp. Petko, why are you asking me for proof of other people's allegations of his guilt?

Please do not continue harping on your erroneous assumptions of what I think and believe.  It might help if you would study some courses in logic and reading comprehension ;-)  Perhaps xxxx can be of assistance?

As for praying, you can be sure that I do pray for Bp. Ramolla, as well as for Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ratzinger, Fr. Hans Küng, etc.

A blessed Feast of Corpus Christi.

On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:39 AM, “Ted” wrote:

Dear “Pamela,”

Your response was what I expected it to be: a non-response.  I asked you for proof, and you have given none – because you have none.  Again I ask, where is it?  Where is your proof, for instance, of Bp. Petko’s guilt? – proof, “Pamela,” not assertions.  Where is it, “Pamela”?  I think that this is a simple enough (and reasonable enough) question to ask – or does that constitute “speaking a different language and therefore it is impossible to communicate rationally”? 

So, “Pamela,” if you cannot respond with a rational answer to that simply put question, then – please -- do not respond at all.  Also, when you pray, don’t forget to pray for Markus Ramolla; he needs all the prayers he can get.


From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Cc: xxxx and xxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear “Ted,”

It's obvious that you and I are speaking a different language and therefore it is impossible to communicate rationally.

There is nothing more to be said, but I will continue to pray for you.


On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:37 PM, “Ted” wrote:


I was actually debating whether I should dignify your response to me with yet another response, as it seemed to me to be a waste of time; but I decided to give it one more try.

First off, your “explanation” of why you wanted to be deleted from only the list of names that you mentioned is as illogical as it is hypocritical.  Most of those people on that list (including myself) are ones who received e-mails, not sent them.  To want to eliminate people just because they receive unsolicited mail makes about as much sense as condemning Christ for having been approached by lepers and sinners.  “Pamela,” your explanation is so transparently ridiculous (and hypocritical) that it defies rationalization.  And let me repeat, I myself have NEVER sent you anything (other than these in the past few days) since November 2011, and that was only in response to your original “What the heck is going on” e-mail of Nov. 18, 2011 and your follow-up e-mail on Nov. 21.  So, let me repeat again: your explanation is bogus; it is false.

Next, your bold-faced statement, “Ted,”you do not know what I believe or think, is also incorrect: in your e-mail of Nov. 21, you clearly told us what you believed and thought, especially your total belief in Bp. Petko’s guilt (based on mere assertions, with NO PROOF at all) and your belief in the seminarians’ total innocence (based again on assertion, with no proof whatsoever).

You claim that you don’t think that xxxx’s “love poem” (or his letter to Bp. Petko) are proof of homosexuality.  Well, “Pamela,” you’re in a very small minority, because both were shown to legal experts, professional personality profilers from the NYC police department (and no, not xxxx’s husband, but to independent experts), and to homosexuals themselves, ALL of whom concluded that these things were written by a homosexual.  What do you need for proof, “Pamela”?  A videotaped act of sodomy on You Tube?!!  And what proof do you have of the seminarians’ innocence, other than their BASELESS allegations?  Furthermore, HOW DARE YOU try to equate what Saint Paul and Saint John wrote with that disgusting crap that xxxx wrote??!!  Are you insane??!!

Next, you speak of my “non-facts and opinions…”  Again, HOW DARE YOU?!  What I say or write is always the truth, backed up with PROOF.  You call xxxx and me (and even xxxx) “masters of destructive criticism.”  Again, HOW DARE YOU?!  Because we have dared to stand up for simple justice and to defend an innocent man against a thieving, lying monster, you call that “destructive criticism”?  “Pamela,” you were not there at St. Albert’s when everything was going on.  WE WERE.  We lived through it.  We were there when Ramolla tried to lie about Fr. Hall’s immigration status.  We were there when he claimed that Fr. Hall was getting a salary when he wasn’t (and we have the parish financial records to prove it).  And dozens of people were there the night of the SAG confirmations when Bp. Slupski accused Fr. Hall of receiving a salary for “saying one Mass a week” when he was in fact doing much more than that (including unpaid mission work and writing the parish bulletin every week), yet getting no salary at all.  “Pamela,” we have both written and recorded proof that both Ramolla and Droleskey lied, along with anecdotal evidence from DOZENS of witnesses – proof that will stand up in a court of law (and which we have not yet ruled out using).  What do you have? – the unsubstantiated assertions of seminarians who have been kicked out of several seminaries, plus known lies from both Ramolla and Droleskey 

You accuse xxxx and me of being arrogant (and of getting on our “high horse,” as you put it) and proclaiming our “opinions and conclusions as if they were the Gospel truth.”  Well, that’s because what we say IS the truth.  And you accuse us of “destructive criticism,” yet you yourself had no qualms about leveling destructive criticism against Bp. Petko – again, when you had absolutely NO PROOF of guilt against him.  “Pamela,” it is time for YOU to “get off your high horse” – or rather your phony moral high ground – and have the humility to admit that you are – and have been – wrong. You call me “arrogant”?  “Pamela,” it is you who are arrogant – that is your problem.  Or, more simply put, it’s the sin of pride: like many traddies, you are too proud to admit that you are wrong.
“Pamela,” if you have any proof at all that what I say is “non-facts and opinions,” then please bring it forth; I’m all ears and eyes: let’s hear it; let’s see it.  But you can’t, can you – because you don’t have it.  But we DO have it – and, if things end up in a court of law, we’ll use it.  Ramolla could possibly go to prison for what he has done; the only thing holding us back in prosecuting him is the cost of the legal process (and the strong possibility that he wouldn't be here to face charges anyway).  [Two sentences removed here for “privacy”].

Lastly, “Pamela,” spare me the sanctimonious comments with which you ended your e-mail.  After showering me with lies and derogatory innuendos, don’t try to invoke Our Lord’s name to white-wash and sugar-coat it all; like Droleskey’s mini-litanies at the end of his articles, that reeks of hypocrisy.  I myself never close my e-mails (or my articles) with that sort of thing, because I believe that it reduces the words to the status of meaningless clichés like “have a nice day.”  Besides, one should not have to invoke Christ’s name to bear witness to (or to legitimize) what he has to say.  Therefore, I’ll simply close by entreating you simply to ponder what you have said, before embarrassing yourself again.

“Pamela,” to save you further embarrassment, I will not copy all the people that were on your original e-mail’s distribution.  However, I have copied xxxx and xxxx, because  I think that they have a right to know -- especially xxxx, who has always been polite and kind to you (as well as to everyone else).  Your including her in your charge of “masters of destructive criticism” was uncalled for and grossly uncharitable.  This, too, I hope that you will reflect on and ponder.


From: “Pamela”
To: “Ted”
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxx
Dear “Ted,”

You and others received my email for the simple reason that you were all included in the group messages that have recently circulated - Obama, Children of Darkness, Advertisement by the Church, etc.  The others you mentioned were not included in those emails, so I did not include them in my request for removal from that group list.

Whenever I find that family or friends have included me in group emails, whether it be about politics, religion, the economy, gardening, or whatever - I ALWAYS ask them to remove me from their group discussion.  It's my choice to spend my time as I deem best.

Regarding your statements:  "You believe..."  "You cannot see the truth..."  "You have closed your mind..."  "You fell for his lies..."  -  “Ted,”you do not know what I believe or think, and it's the height of arrogance and absurdity to assume that you do.  

Yes, I have read what you and others have published, including the seminarian's "love poem" and letter.  You conclude that he is a "flaming homosexual".  You could just as readily conclude that Saint Paul and Saint John were flaming homosexuals, based on some of their writings!

Your non-facts and opinions are no more convincing to me than Droleskey's.  Indeed, you and he have quite a bit in common - you both get on your high horse and proclaim your opinions and conclusions as if they were Gospel truth.  And you both, along with xxxx and xxxx, are masters of destructive criticism. 

I try to get as much information as I can on subjects of importance, and then I make my own judgments.  You would be surprised to learn some of them are contrary to what you assume.

All of us have been hurt and deceived by others.  All of us have seen injustices being done to the innocent by unthinking or downright heartless people.  We can react by lashing out in hysterical fury at those we consider wrong - which achieves no good and is damaging to our mental and spiritual health.  Or we can try, with prayer and God's help, to correct errors and convert the wayward.  You make your choice and I'll make mine ;-)

With prayers, in Christ,

On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:36 PM, “Ted” wrote:


Who are you trying to kid?  You have sent your e-mail to people with whom you do not want to associate, NOT because you’re too busy, etc.  Why did you not copy Markus Ramolla, Thomas Droleskey, Florent Grassigli, Marcellus Moylan, et al on your e-mail?  Droleskey in particular is a droning pedant, whom I would avoid at all cost if I were too busy to correspond.  Your not mentioning him and the others belies the hypocrisy behind your words.  And why did you send your e-mail to me?  I haven’t e-mailed you in MONTHS -- and when I did, it was only in reply to an e-mail that you sent.  Come on, “Pamela”!

And you know full well that xxxx, xxxx, and I have sent you NO “discussion group” e-mails or anything “inflammatory” at all.  I remember when you sent all of us e-mails asking what was going on with Bp. Petko et al.  At the time, he was being (wrongly) accused of misbehavior by Ramolla and Droleskey.  xxxx and I, as board members at SAG, could not comment at the time; but Ramolla, being the two-faced liar that he is, threw discretion and propriety to the wind, and “sang like a canary,” selectively leaking out lies to make himself look like a “victim” – and you fell for his lies, like an egg from a tall chicken.

You believed Ramolla’s lies about Bp. Petko, even though there was not ONE SHRED of proof to back up his (or Droleskey’s) allegations.  Have you seen or read the letter that xxxx wrote to Bp. Petko, o the “love poem” that xxxx wrote to xxxx?  Anyone in their right mind would conclude that both (letter and poem) are that of a flaming homosexual; and remember, the “poem” was written MONTHS before xxxx (or xxxx) ever met Bp. Petko – yet I’m sure that you firmly believe Bp. Petko is in the wrong and xxxx is “innocent.”  You believe unsubstantiated lies, yet cannot see truth when it is staring you in the face.

“Pamela,” when you asked us “what the heck is going on” late last year, we told you that we would inform you when we could; but now that we are willing and able to tell you, you have closed your mind like a steel trap, and refuse to listen.  There were many at SAG who sided with Ramolla against xxxx and me, but who have since themselves been double-crossed by Ramolla.  They now know him for what he is: a liar and a thief (he also tried his hand at womanizing: he had an affair with a former SAG parishioner – and dozens of people, including Bp. xxxxxxxxx and Fr. xxxxxxx of IC – know about it.  Ramolla, not Bp. Petko, is a sexual predator).  You too will be double-crossed by him some day.  “Pamela,” wake up before it happens to you too.

From: “Pamela”
To: xxxx
Cc: [A long list of people]
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 8:24 AM
Subject: xxxxxxxxxx

Happy Feast of the Queenship of Our Lady!

I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would remove me from your discussion list and address book.  I just don't have time to read these messages and participate in the discussions.

Many thanks.
In Christ,