Revisiting Doctor Droleskey’s Diatribe: One Year Later

In light of the public apology just recently issued by Fr. Florent Grassigli to Bp. Paul Petko, Lay Pulpit has decided to “reprise” the article, “Retracting Support for Paul Petko” Revisited, which was a refutation of Droleskey’s Christ or Chaos article, Retracting Support of Paul Petko.  We are telling it again (only this time, with “more” added to it) because it needs to be said again, for the following reasons: first, Droleskey’s article contained accusations that put (and were designed to put) people’s minds in an “emotionally turbocharged” state.  A “one year later” look at the data can be done more dispassionately, making it easier for one to see the objective fact through the emotional “smoke.” 

Secondly, the data can be (and will be) analyzed more “concisely”: Droleskey’s “marathon” covered a lot of ground – in fact, too much ground; and he veered off onto irrelevant, often ridiculous tangents.  Taking a second look, one can ignore the superfluous falderal and concentrate on fewer (and more relevant) items, and thus be able to analyze them more closely -- and in greater detail.  And that is what we’re doing this time around: taking a more in-depth look, but at fewer items -- the “major” ones.  The other thing we’re doing – in the interest of brevity – is to divide our commentary up into smaller “bites,” i.e., into several articles (vs. one massive rebuttal as was done before).  This will save the reader from the obvious tedium of plowing through a long tome.  Lastly, it is universally acknowledged that repetition is a most effective form of reinforcement – especially when there is new information (such as Fr. Grassigli’s recent communication**) to accompany it.  Therefore, we think that this is a most propitious time to be “taking that second look.”

It has been over a year (November 23, 2011) since Dr. Thomas Droleskey’s 50+ page marathon first appeared on his Christ or Chaos website.  The article, as you may recall, accused Bp. Petko of “inappropriate behavior” toward seminarians (and a former seminarian) attending Markus Ramolla’s St. Athanasius Seminary (attached to St. Albert the Great Church in West Chester, Ohio, where Ramolla was pastor at the time).  Although Ramolla and the seminarians were the ones who allegedly made the accusations, it was Droleskey who wrote the article (and who, no doubt, “orchestrated” the accusations as well).  Now if one wants to go back and reread Droleskey’s article, guess what, folks – it’s gone.  It’s no longer on his website!  And the reason is simple:  Droleskey realizes that he embarrassed himself: in his vindictive frenzy, he exposed his raw hatred for what it was; and he now realizes that -- when re-examined under the cold, clear light of logic – his emotionally-charged laundry list of allegations against Petko just won’t stand up to scrutiny.  And scrutiny we will give it!

So, with that said, the stage is now set for bringing out that evidence in detail -- which should be Dr. Droleskey’s worst nightmare come true.  Not only will the sanctimonious doctor be exposed as a liar, but there are other revelations that have recently come to light about him that may put even more icing on an already well-iced cake (actually, “cake” is the wrong metaphor; “humble pie” is more like it).  The other loser in this affair will be Dr. D’s co-conspirator, Markus Ramolla – and, as they say, “It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.”  But “humble pie” is not what this article is all about, nor is “vindicating Bp. Petko” per se (although the latter will be a happy and welcome by-product).  The main reason for this article (and others that follow) is that it (and they) may serve as a deterrent to warn people from being exploited and led astray by the likes of Droleskey and Ramolla.

In ensuing articles, Lay Pulpit will analyze three “mainstays” of Droleskey’s “evidence” against Bp. Petko:

1.    Bp. Petko’s “association” with Ryan Scott

2.    Bp. Petko’s alleged “inappropriate behavior” with a (former) seminarian

3.    Bp. Petko’s “grooming” of one of the seminarians

We will examine each one of these “charges,” only this time (as said before) in more detail and depth; and we will show that Droleskey, in his diatribe, appealed to people’s sensibilities -- not their sense -- and swayed them with emotional “smoke,” innuendo, and hearsay, instead of deductive reasoning, clear logic, and fact.  And when he did try to present one of his “facts,” he got it wrong – and got himself caught in a lie.  The other device that Droleskey used, of course, was his trademark tactic of “sheer volume” – inundating readers with so much verbiage that it overwhelms them and “wears them down” – especially those who equate quantity with quality.  We believe, however, that once our readers take our second look with us, they’ll see through Droleskey’s volumetric droning and emotionally-charged sensationalism, and see his “evidence” as the illogical absurdity that it is – and see that he really had no evidence at all, but baseless assertions and innuendo.  In fact, what real evidence that does exist will prove him wrong --  and real evidence we have. 

So, to repeat, the stage is set; and we are now ready to “revisit” Droleskey’s article again, and re-examine his accusations.  “Stay tuned” for our next installment.

**[Editor’s note: Skeptics (such as Droleskey himself, for instance) might argue that Fr. Grassigli, who was formerly allied with him (and Ramolla) against Bp. Petko, Acted out of “self-interest” in making his apology (the “rats-leaving-a-drowning-ship” defense); but that would only confirm that Dr. D was a fellow rat.  The “self-interest” that most probably motivated Fr. Grassigli was the one which we should all have: that of saving our souls.  Dr. D might also contend that Fr. Grassigli has no evidence to back up what he now says.  Well, neither does Droleskey:  he had absolutely no substantive evidence to back up his accusations against Bp. Petko – only hearsay.  But we do have evidence; and, as the reader will see, we will convincingly show the falsity and absurdity of Dr. D’s “logic,” plus we will present proof that Droleskey lied – which only makes Fr. Grassigli’s apology all the more “significant.” 

Whatever one might say about his motives, the fact remains that Fr. Grassigli did admit that he was wrong – which in itself is significant.  Will Dr. D do the same?  Or will he pick up his pen and do to Fr. Grassigli what he did to Bp. Petko: crucify him with fifty pages of vitriol (followed, no doubt, by one of his trademark sanctimonious, hypocritical “mini-litanies”)?  Or will he just hunker down in his “hidey hole” (as he once so mockingly said of Bp. Petko) and try to ignore what Fr. Grassigli said, or pretend that it was never said at all, or “stonewall” it in some other way (in the hope that “it will just go away”)?  Sorry, Dr. D, “none of the above” -- because it’s not going to go away.  You can run to your “hidey hole,” but you can’t hide in it.  Your “hidey hole” is in the cross-hairs of our bazooka -- and when we’re done, your “hidey hole” will become an open crater.

It would be better for Dr. D to “come clean” now, to save him even greater embarrassment in the future, because his days are numbered.  For one thing, his “conspiratorial alliance” is already unraveling (as they say, “drowning rats leave sinking ships”).  The Teutonic rodent has already left, and the other members of Dr. D’s conspiratorial clique have scattered as well (but more on that later).  When the rest of the truth inevitably comes out, Dr. D’s “hidey hole” (and that of the other piece of “toxic protoplasm” over in Deutschland) will look more like a bull’s eye at an archery tournament.  I suggest that both of these men go out and buy themselves some Kevlar® underwear – because, to quote the late Al Jolson, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”