Lay Pulpit
interrupts its series of articles (examining Dr. Droleskey’s attack on Bp.
Petko) to bring to the public’s attention something that has just occurred: the
“pulling” of a “thread” from cathinfo.com’s sub-forum, Crisis in the Church.
The “thread” was entitled “An apology to Bishop Paul Petko”; and this
apology To Bp. Petko was made by Fr. Florent Grassigli. The just recently ordained Fr.
Grassigli was involved as an “accomplice” of sorts in Dr. Droleskey’s (and Fr.
Markus Ramolla’s) attacks on Bp. Petko.
Fr. Grassigli has since recanted his position, and – in reparation -- has
published a public apology to Bp. Petko on cathinfo’s website on the
aforementioned “thread.” That
thread, including Fr. Grassigli’s apology and several pages of reader’s “comments,” has since been pulled from the
website. It is gone. What we at
Lay Pulpit are doing now is to
re-post Fr. Grassigli’s apology on our
website. Also, we are kindly
requesting that the cathinfo website’s moderator – “Matthew” -- reinstate Fr.
Grassigli’s “thread” on his website.
We
understand that some “house-cleaning” was recently done on the cathinfo website
to remove some of the “older threads” and to clean things up a bit. The “Apology” thread, however, was not
an “old” thread, nor was it considered “controversial” in any way: it was
simply an apology from one person to
another. Additionally, the thread
(along with the aforementioned “several pages of comments”) appeared on the website
for several days before being pulled,
with no “adverse reaction” of any sort taking place, and with nothing
“controversial” or “out of the ordinary” being posted on it – nor did “Matthew”
note anything “untoward” about the thread – but
now it is gone.
In a post
on one of the new sub-forums (created by “Matthew,” no less) on cathinfo,
Matthew himself said – and I quote – “Cathinfo is a message board for all
Traditional Catholics, particularly those serious about their Faith.” It was signed, “In Christ,” “Matthew.” Well, Matthew, we too are Traditional
Catholics, and we too are “particularly…serious
about [our] Faith.” Matthew, we truly
believe that you are a man who means what he says; therefore, we feel
certain that we shall see Fr. Grassigli’s “thread” back on your website. We look forward to its return.
That being
said, the following – which will remain on this
website for some time to come -- is the text of Fr. Grassigli’s apology to Bp.
Petko:
PUBLIC
APOLOGY OF REVEREND FATHER FLORENT GRASSIGLI
IN
DEFENSE OF THE MOST REVEREND BISHOP PAUL PETKO
“But if thy brother shall
offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall
hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with
thee one or two more :
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he
will not hear them :
tell the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” St.
Matt., xviii, 15-17.
Dear Faithful,
If I am writing this public
apology, it is in order to repair the tremendous harm done against a Bishop of
the Roman Catholic Church, His Excellency Bishop Paul Petko, as well as against
the Ritter Family and all those related to them, whether family, friends or
clergy.
As I have been ordained a
Priest by His Excellency Bishop Robert Dymek (himself ordained and consecrated
by Bishop Francis Slupski), I am hence free to speak my mind and repair the
offended justice, as much as my capacities allow me.
It has been indeed a long
and crooked path to the priesthood along which I did many mistakes. After
having appeared as an accuser against Bp. Petko, as some may remember, I have
to make this public statement — since
the offence against him was also made public — to try to restore Bp. Paul Petko’s reputation, and of all
those connected to him.
Over a year ago, an article
published by Doctor Thomas Droleskey on his website Christ of Chaos provoked an
immense controversy, questioning Bishop Paul Petko’s moral integrity. Although
reluctantly, I had to respond to an interview concerning Bp. Petko’s visit in
England, while I was there to receive the two last Minor Orders. The article
published by Dr. Droleskey depicted His Excellency as a sexual predator,
throwing all sort of different informations together, without discernment,
rashly, provoking much confusion and scandal of many Traditional Catholics.
The Ritter Family was
attacked as well in the most unjust way, and all and every facts related about
them were whether false, half-true, misconstrued, twisted or even forged, as I
recently realised by speaking with them.
Although closely involved
with Dr. Droleskey and Father Markus Ramolla, then Pastor of Saint Albert the
Great, and partaking in the public campaign against Bp. Petko by relating what
happened in England, I never believed that Bp. Petko was what he was accused to
be.
I recently contacted Bishop
Paul Petko in order to speak about what happened over a year ago and seek
forgiveness for my past involvement with those who tried to destroy his
reputation, for I knew, since the beginning, that ulterior motives have been
motivating the main actors of the campaign against Bp. Paul Petko. It has been
also the opportunity to clarify certain doubts and dispel apprehensions that I
had, and speak in length about all what happened over the past year.
It might be a surprise to
some of those who are going to read this public apology and have known me that
I finally withdraw support concerning what may have been said about Bp. Petko.
But time passing by it became clearer and clearer to me that a major mistake
has been made, and hence that I have to do my part in order to repair the harm
that has been done to Bp. Petko’s reputation.
More than a year and a half
ago I stayed at Bp. Petko’s place along with a friend of mine for about a week.
We had a wonderful time, together with the Ritters. We did not have the
opportunity to meet the whole family, but the atmosphere of their household was
of the one of a devoted, pious and honest traditional catholic family. Nothing
strange nor odd struck me, no doubt whatsoever clouded my mind concerning Bp.
Petko’s moral integrity.
Bishop Petko was fatherly
and kind to all of us, and wanted to help us in anyway he could. He knew all we
had to endure as seminarians, how hard it has been for all of us, seminarians,
and wanted to give a different image of a Bishop : as the one of a true spiritual father.
Bishop Petko lived under
the same roof along the Ritter family for more than a decade. I have met them
and could not reconcile the excellent impression I had of their household, with
the monstrous image given of them by Dr. Droleskey’s article. But I trusted in
Droleskey’s as well Fr. Ramolla’s judgement, and thought that they must be
seeing things which I see not. Therefore, I remained silent and approved — at least to some extend — their action.
But now that time has
passed on, I can calmly acknowledge that the reaction against Bp. Petko was
irrational, rash, impulsive. No chance has been given to Bp. Petko do defend
nor explain himself over the many accusations made against him ; insults of all sort were thrown
against Bp. Petko, the Ritters and those supporting them ; ties where cut by Fr. Ramolla as
soon as disagreement may have been expressed by any of the parties involved in
this affair.
Now that I am a Priest, in
justice, before God and before every honest traditional catholic, I would like
to express my deep and sincere regrets in having been part in the castigation
of Bp. Petko, and having distance over those past events, it is indeed easy to
see clearly what and why all this happened.
None of these should have
been an issue. If Bishop Petko may have been overly affectionate (for many of
the accusations have been exaggerated or put outside of context, and hence
giving a completely false impression), there is nothing, strictly nothing worth
provoking such rage and such accusations, so far as to desire to “kill” Bishop
Paul Petko.
On the other hand, how
could a family accept under the same roof a sexual predator living along with
their children? Alas, for ulterior motives were also motivating certain
individuals, the only way out was to demonise the Ritters and Bp. Petko.
While I admit that I have
been responsible in the castigation of a catholic Bishop, as I entrusted my
vocation to my spiritual director and superior, I did not act properly such as
by distancing myself from these accusations, nor by making a clear stance
against these accusations earlier.
As I am a Priest, and
thereon free of pressure, I have the opportunity here to try to repair and make
up for the immense damage done against a Prince’s of the Church reputation, as
it is due in justice.
Nolite tangere Christos
meos, says the Psalmist, “don’t touch my anointed ones”, this
is the cry of my priestly heart, that none shall ever more condemn the innocent
blood — for
it is nothing else than crucify Christ all over again ; neither shall ordination be used
as a mean of control and power over seminarians.
With my priestly blessing,
Father Florent Grassigli +
No comments:
Post a Comment