“Despicable” Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Back in late 2011 and early 2012, after a certain “Ph.D” (“piled high & deep”) attacked Bp. Paul Petko on his website (let’s call it “Capitalizing on Chaos,” or “CoC” for short) -- when the “cyber buzz” was going “hot and heavy” on “cathinfo.com” – a post appeared in one of that website’s “threads” in a sub-forum entitled Crisis in the Church.  This post was written by a man who claimed to have been a fellow seminarian of Paul Petko’s (at Mary Immaculate Seminary in Allentown, Pennsylvania) back in the early 1980’s.

Now there are several things “strange” (and “telling”) about this post: first, it must be remembered that “cathinfo” is a HUGE website, with over a dozen “forums,” sub-divided into dozens of “sub-forums” (such as Crisis in the Church), and then into yet even more (sometimes thousands of) “threads” (the Crisis in the Church sub-forum, for instance, has over three thousand).  Now it might be fairly easy for one of the website’s “regulars” (one who regularly posts on it), to find (and follow) a particular thread.  But for an “outsider” or newcomer, finding the right thread is like “finding a needle in a haystack.”  Yet this man knew to “home in” on a particular part of a particular thread of a sub-forum (Crisis in the Church) of a particular forum, even though he had been “out of the loop” for almost thirty years.  And he knew just where to go to “pick up” on the discussion going on about Bp. Petko – something that one would expect only an “insider” to know.

But, let’s assume that this man somehow had “a rare ‘gift’ for finding needles in haystacks.”  In his post -- the full text of which is found in the following link -- he claimed that he was “gay,” and then went on to claim that Bp. Petko was also “gay.”  He provided a long “laundry list” of details, and he was able to recall things that Petko (allegedly) said or did -- even things involving other men, when he (the “gay” man) was not present. The “details” that he gave were also very extensive, and full of lurid, provocative imagery – very much like those once given to describe a certain “fanny-squeezing” incident some time back.

But for all the extensive detail given, one detail was NOT: the man’s identity.  As for his reasons for anonymity, he said only, “I am not able to identify myself at this time. I am, however, concerned that individuals may be harmed in some way by Bishop Petko’s actions. That is why I am posting this.”  The first obvious question is: why is he not able to “identify [himself] at this time”?  He can make such devastating allegations, but then not be able to give his name “at this time” – really?  What harm would it do him to identify himself “at this time”?  And, if “this time” is not convenient, then how about “some other time”? In a later post (on a related website), this same man claimed, “I will not respond further to the discounting of my testimony. I will, however, be glad to answer questions that I can.” [my emphasis].  Okay, then, again, how about answering this: who are you?

And, of course, when this man stated, “I am, however, concerned that individuals may be harmed in some way by Bishop Petko’s actions” – that brings up a second and even more important point:  What about the harm he did to Bp. Petko?!!  Why was he not “concerned” about that?!  And to make a whole catalog of heinous accusations against someone – all of them unsubstantiated -- and expect them to be believed?  And then conveniently hide behind a cloak of anonymity?  What kind of man could have the hubris, the motive, and the malevolence to pull off such a thing? (And what this “gay” man posted was malevolent – so much so that “cathinfo’s” moderator pulled it from his website the very day after it appeared).  But guess what?  It appeared on a “new” website just a day or two later – a blog with professionally done graphics.  This blog was (purportedly) done by this “gay” man – someone who “came out of the woodwork” some thirty odd years later – and who happens to be a real “whiz” at setting up websites.  How fortuitous!  How timely! 

This new blog, after it was started, quickly filled up with article after article (check it out!), all of which (of course) accused Bp. Petko of all sorts of heinous deeds, but all of which (of course) had absolutely no proof to back them up – only unsubstantiated allegations, accompanied by repeated exhortations such as the following: “It is regrettable that some folks choose not to believe what I posted due to the fact I have posted anonymously.”  “What I have posted is true and I post in front of you and in front of God who is my witness.”  “Truth and integrity are essential to who I am.”  “What I have posted is more important than who I am. I have nothing to be gained by posting this material. I do not care to “take sides” with one person or another.”  “There is no reason I would post this information if it were not true.”  “I hope you will at least consider the possibility that what I have posted is true.”   “Truth and integrity are essential to who I am.” [!!]  Very impassioned words – but what else?

He expects the reader to believe these things, simply because he said them – and, of course, anonymously, so that there’s no way to authenticate (or deny) what he says.  And what does he say?  If one reads carefully through the whole blog, he finds it filled with all sorts of impassioned exhortations to “believe what I say” – but, again, with not one shred of substantiated data.  There are, in addition to the numerous accusations and insinuations about Bp. Petko, “miles and miles” of other “data”: a detailed faculty list of the seminary that Petko attended, historical data on this or that, references to “experts” on this or that -- even biblical quotes sprinkled here and there (as if all of this matters); but (again) how much “data” is there that is relevant?  ZERO.

And all of this (supposedly) comes from a man, heretofore unknown and unheralded, appearing “from out of nowhere” one day to make a post on a website – who then decides to go on a protracted, full-blown, one-man rampage to vehemently discredit Bp. Petko – yet claims that he has “…nothing to be gained” and does not “…care to ‘take sides’ with one person or another”?  On the one hand, he unmercifully cuts a man to pieces in print, but claims that he is not “taking sides” and has “nothing to gain” by doing so.  Now, if what he is doing to Petko is “not taking sides” then -- what is it?!  And -- this man who professes to be still “gay” – why, thirty years later, is he bashing another supposedly “gay” man if he has “nothing to gain” by it?  Why the public-spirited “concern” for others?  This just isn’t consistent with what “gays” do: they try to promote their life-style, not deprecate it (or drive others away from it).

It just doesn’t make any sense.  Homosexual men don’t “bash” other homosexual men; they usually “stick together” (double meaning intended!).  They are usually misogynists, i.e., “women-haters,” not “men-haters.“  Moreover, they don’t go in for traditional Catholicism (as this man’s rhetoric seems to indicate), because they know that traditional Catholicism is violently opposed to them (or should be!).  Furthermore, why would someone, “gay” or otherwise, go through all the time and trouble of setting up a whole blog dedicated solely to smearing someone – even to the extent of referencing “facebook” and “twitter” to increase exposure?  Again, it just doesn’t make sense.  Who would be so dedicated (and so vindictive) as to go through all that trouble – against a fellow homosexual?

Well, do you suppose that perhaps this “gay” man was really someone else -- someone who really did have something to gain by creating this new “Petko-bashing” blog: the aforementioned “Ph.D,” for instance?  Would not a “corroborating” blog increase his (the Ph.D’s) credibility – and therefore CoC’s readership?  Methinks that “Ph.D” certainly thought so – and figured that he needed this “corroboration” -- because his original 50-plus page diatribe actually hurt his readership.  Ergo, he needed this corroborative “shot in the arm.”  Another reason for creating a separate Petko-bashing blog would be to keep CoC “clean,” since CoC was used ordinarily for ponderous pontificating designed to impress ecclesiastical illiterates (and to serve as an insomnia cure for the rest of us).  He didn’t want any “dirt” on CoC, as it had to remain “pristinely sanctimonious”; therefore, any “garbage” needed to be put on another site – on an “anonymous” blog that could also take any “slings and arrows” directed at it, thus saving CoC for “nice stuff.” 

And that’s exactly what most people have figured has happened: they have “put two and two together” and have figured out that the author of the “Petko-bashing” blog and “CoC” are one and the same: everything on both blogs – writing style, thought patterns, general modus operandi – matches.  In his “cleverness,” “Ph.D” has outsmarted himself again, for – in addition to his other trademark attributes – he tends to overdo things – as he always does.  Just as in his original diatribe, he “just doesn’t know when to quit”; he “gilds the lily” ad nauseam: he “piles it on” until it’s embarrassingly obvious who’s behind it.

And that being the case, once the inevitable truth comes out, such a strategy inevitably backfires and comes back to haunt one – like a boomerang on steroids.  And it also exposes one for what he is.  “Ph.D,” how could you be so malevolent as to go to all that extent – the 50-plus page marathon, the “false” witnesses” against Bp. Petko (“fanny-squeezing,” “grooming” -- whatever), the “anonymous” post on cathinfo, the instantaneous, “just in time” Petko-bashing blog – and then coolly continue to write your sanctimonious pap on CoC. “Ph.D,” how does your mind work?  More importantly, where is your conscience?

Conscience – that’s the key word; that explains why “Ph.D” behaves the way he does: that is, he doesn’t have a conscience.  That’s why he can do to Bp. Petko (and to the Ritters) what he did, and still merrily go on pontificating on CoC as if “nothing had happened.”  It explains how he could make up all kinds of things – “fanny squeezing,” “grooming,” the “gay” post on cathinfo, the Petko-bashing blog.  But it also explains why he can’t quit: a brain without a conscience is like a runaway train without brakes:  It can’t stop.  It goes out of control.  And, ultimately, it crashes.  And the reason that he has no conscience is, I think, that he lacks that other “C”: charity.  One must have charity to have a conscience.

“Ph.D,” I must ask:  How could you do this to an innocent man – a man who only wanted to serve God and his fellow man -- and who never meant you or anyone else any harm?  What kind of a man are you, that you could -- after thoroughly wrecking a man’s reputation on a public internet forum -- then pose as someone else on yet another public website to “anonymously” pile on even more heinous (and fictitious) charges?  Have you no fear of God or His Justice?  Do you not care what happens to your immortal soul?  Do you not have any spark of conscience left in you?  Tell me, “Ph.D,” what kind of blood runs in your veins?  Will you stoop to even lower acts of treachery?  What new cutthroat schemes are you plotting now?  What new “mind games” are you planning?  What’s left in your bag of nasty tricks?

Well, his latest “trick” is this:  “Ph.D” has now become Father “Ph.D”!  Yes, the world’s “worst-kept secret” is out: he has gotten himself ordained a priest, by (who else?) the senile “Bishop S” from Wisconsin!  But how can the “married with children” “Ph.D” become a priest?  Well, welcome to traddie-land’s wonderful world of Epikeia, under whose wide and wondrous umbrella just about anything goes -- from the ridiculous (getting a “Friday abstinence” dispensation at SGG for going to Mass because “DD” wanted to fill up his church that day) to the even more ridiculous (getting a married-with-children ordination from Bp. S).  (The now fragile Bp. S, having suffered several strokes, seems to want to ordain anybody and everybody these days.)  Is it only a matter of time when a senile (or misguided) “bishop” mistakenly ordains a woman -- thereby beat Francis I (aka Franken-pope) to the punch?

Perhaps “Ph.D” thought that getting ordained might gain him that coveted “Alter Christus” status: instantaneous immunity from any criticism -- the clause that so many traddies invoke to protect their favorite misbehaving cleric from censure (it’s a shame that so many of them didn’t invoke this “clause” when Petko was being crucified!).  Under the wide-open blank check that empowers one under traddieland’s idea of “epikeia,” “Ph.D” has flaunted the Church’s disciplinary rules and got himself made “priest.”  Well, sorry to disappoint you Fr. “Ph.D,” but you can’t hide your deeds behind a Roman collar.  What you have done to an innocent man’s reputation cannot be cleansed away by ordination.

“Ph.D,” what did you hope to gain by doing what you did?  Do you realize how much damage you have done, not only to him, but to your own immortal soul??  Yes -- your soul:  do you care about your soul?  If you really do, then consider what you have done:  by your actions, you have poisoned the minds of thousands of people against this man; you have opened up that proverbial “pillow” and let all the feathers scatter to the four winds.  How are you going to retrieve them?  How are you going to make amends to this man, and -- more importantly -- to God?  And what have you really gained?  What did you really get for your thirty pieces of silver?

What really prompted “Ph.D” to do what he did?  Ego, that’s what.  The Ritters (and Bp. Petko) bruised his monumental ego by standing up to him and not letting him run their lives (and their chapel).  For that, they earned his eternal ire.  He had to take his own personal revenge against them, so he concocted his scheme against Petko, for the sole material purpose of helping a Neanderthal ex-dung-shoveler-turned-amateur-cleric to get his miter (who then afterwards turned on him anyway) and for the hope of increasing his readership on CoC.  But it didn’t.  It backfired.

Now some may ask, what has Lay Pulpit to gain by writing about all of this, i.e., by fighting another man’s (Bp. Petko’s) battles?  Nothing – nothing except the gratification of having stood up for justice – for having defended an innocent man against the duplicity of a tyrant.  We certainly don’t materially profit by it.  Unlike “Ph.D,” who peddles his wares for money donations, Lay Pulpit gets (and asks) nothing for its efforts.  We who write for it earn our daily bread by independent means, and don’t need to resort to pontificating for our pay.  We speak not for profit, but simply because we can’t stand the stench of injustice in our nostrils; and you, “Ph.D,” stink to high heaven.  For your own spiritual well-being, you had better get some real humility (instead of that “woe-is-me,” “wounded lily” FALSE humility that you pander on your sanctimonious rag-sheet).  “Ph.D,” your wretched past is catching up with you.  If you have any semblance of conscience left in you at all, you had better “come clean” now – or else.