Lie No. 3: “Grooming” of a Seminarian

As Lay Pulpit pointed out in its original refutation of Droleskey’s Retracting Support for Paul Petko, the charge that is perhaps the easiest one of all to put to rest is this one: that of Bp. Petko “grooming” one of the seminarians.  This charge was not so much a presentation of evidence by Droleskey, but more a bit of “damage control” done by him to suppress evidence (or at least to defuse it) – evidence that would incriminate one of Ramolla’s seminarians.  This seminarian had written what can only be described as a “love letter” to Bp. Petko – one written obviously by someone with homosexual tendencies; and Droleskey had to somehow “explain it away” by shifting the blame for those tendencies to someone else: Bp. Petko.  He did this by claiming that Bp. Petko had “groomed” this seminarian into acquiring those tendencies, which, in turn, prompted him to write the letter.

If Droleskey relied on his “fanny-squeezing” charge as one of the mainstays of his attack on Bp. Petko, the other cornerstone in his “arsenal of proof” was this “grooming” charge.  Droleskey devoted several pages to it, including citing various “experts” on homosexuality and “grooming” (such as Randy Engel, and her book, The Rite of Sodomy).  He started by saying that Bp. Petko, who taught this seminarian (along with other seminarians), “groomed” him during the time that this seminarian was under his tutelage.  The first problem with that is this: the seminarian only had verbal contact with Bp. Petko a total of about fourteen hours** – hardly enough time to get “groomed” – and most of that time was in a classroom setting, not in the “private” setting that one would most assuredly need to attempt “grooming.”**  The next problem is that Bp. Petko also taught two other seminarians – which begs the question:  Why did he not choose to groom them as well?

But the biggest problem with Dr. D’s theory is that this same seminarian who had supposedly been prompted (by Petko) to write this “love letter” had also written another “amorous instrument” -- a “love poem” -- to a one-time fellow seminarian -- several months before either of them met Bp. Petko (or even knew that he existed!).  Droleskey apparently never knew about the poem when he made the allegation, or he would not have exposed himself in such a manner.  Both the “love letter” and “love poem,” one may recall, were covered in another Lay Pulpit article, Oh What a Tangled Web It Was – and Is, which contains them in addendums.  For those wish to examine the “love poem” but who cannot take the trouble to click on that link, here is that poem, entitled “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.     

The seminarian sent this poem to Bp. Petko on October 15, 2011 (about the same time that he also sent his letter); but (by the seminarian’s own admission) the poem was written back in January 2011 – long before this seminarian ever met (or knew of) Bp. Petko.  By the way, the person for whom this poem was written was that “former seminarian” -- the allegedly “fanny-squeezed” one -- who was this seminarian’s roommate at CMRI’s Mater Dei Seminary at the time.  Note also that this poem is excerpted from an e-mail, which means that its existence can be legally established – which also means that neither Dr. D (nor any of his “apologists”) can deny it.

This must be a hard pill for Dr. D (and them) to swallow.  They could “stonewall” the rest of the other evidence: they could overlook the irrelevance and false logic of Droleskey’s charge about Bp. Petko’s “association” with Ryan Scott; or they might pretend not to see the multiple absurdities in the “fanny-squeezing” charge – but they can’t ignore physical facts.  This they cannot “pretend away.”  Of course, they could pretend that the foregoing poem is not a love poem; but then they’d also have to admit that the letter wasn’t either – which blows away Droleskey’s whole house of cards. 

Droleskey’s careless “chronology” oversight is prima facie evidence that he lied about the “grooming” charge – and that’s probably another reason (perhaps the reason) why he pulled his article from his website: when Lay Pulpit originally pointed out his glaring error, he realized that he had caught himself in a lie, so he had to “hide” it – by removing it from his website.  But that’s what liars do: when they get “caught,” they run and hide.  And another thing about liars: when they lie, they always lie, because they don’t know when to quit – especially when they’re hell-bent on vengeance.  As thieves invariably steal “until they get caught,” so do liars keep on lying until they get found out.  And liars, like thieves, get over-confident and careless, thinking that they’ll never get caught – but they do. They get carried away to the point where they stray beyond the bounds of logic and reason.  And in their reckless frenzy to destroy their victims, they invariably destroy themselves.   That’s what happened when Droleskey raved on about the “fanny-squeezing”: he “gilded the lily” too much – to, literally, an unbelievable degree.  When that charge is examined logically, it is seen to be utterly preposterous (and that it couldn’t ever have taken place). 

But, in spite of what’s just been said, skeptical “Droleskeyites” might ignore that, and still argue that the exposing of the false “grooming” charge is really the “only hard evidence” (hard physical fact) that there is. But what must be realized is that, in the face of ZERO EVIDENCE to the contrary, how much more “hard evidence” is really needed?  Besides, the logical evidence alone can stand on its own two feet (while Droleskey’s can’t).  It really doesn’t need absolute physical evidence to reinforce it (but it’s nice to know it’s there!).  Droleskey realizes this: he knows that our evidence, whether “physical” or “logical,” will stand up to scrutiny, and that his won’t – especially when the “emotionalism dust” settles.  And he knows that when people have hard physical evidence presented to them, it’s a real “clincher”: it more than reinforces everything else.

One more thing: Droleskey realizes that in the plot against Bp. Petko – once its goal was reached – the alliance would dissolve; and along with it, the allegiances that bound its “allies” together.  And theirs being a conspiratorial alliance, former “allies” often – like rats -- turn on each other; with today’s “ally” becoming tomorrow’s enemy (and there is evidence that this is happening).  What should worry Droleskey, then (and I think it does), is that one of these “rats” might turn on him and decide to “turn state’s evidence” – especially when the folly of Dr. D’s “evidence” becomes embarrassingly obvious.  Dr. D no longer has a hold on any of them, and none of them owes him allegiance anymore -- and it takes only one “rat” to “rat on him.”  If I were he, I’d be getting nervous.

Droleskey tried his vengeful best to bury an innocent man under a seemingly endless barrage of verbiage – but it turned out to be a zeppelin filled with the hot air of emotionalism.  It took him for a short, exhilarating ride (and he managed to take a lot of other people along for that ride).  But now, that hot air has given way to the cold, clear light of logic (and cold, hard fact), which has brought his zeppelin back down to earth.  Droleskey knows this; that’s why his “zeppelin” is “no longer in the hangar” – he has pulled it from his website, because people eventually saw it for the avalanche of vitriolic vindictiveness that it was (and which should make them see his sanctimonious, trademark “mini-litany” at the end of his article for the consummate hypocrisy that it was).  It has done him more harm than good.  “The zeppelin has crash-landed.”

The problem, however, is that a lot of people went along on this “ride” -- they believed Droleskey’s lies; and an innocent man’s reputation was sullied – or rather stolen – in the process.  Even for those who didn’t out-and-out believe his lies, it still gave them lingering doubts.  Many still consider Bp. Petko (and those connected with him) to be “damaged goods” in one degree or another   We hope, however, that we have now succeeded in removing those doubts (or at least in creating some of our own – especially for the “no-thanks-my-mind-is-already-made-up” segment).  If we have done so, then we will have made some real progress. 

One wonders what kind of a mind it takes to deliberately lie about someone with the intent of destroying that someone.  What Droleskey did to Bp. Petko was a “hatchet job” by anybody’s yardstick.  But the fact that he did it is not surprising – scoundrels have been doing it throughout history.  The Pharisees did it to our Lord: they brought a plethora of false charges against Him, and then had Him crucified.  Nowadays, in our so-called “information age” (i.e., misinformation age), it’s done a little differently: one makes up his mind beforehand, then goes and looks for the right “data” to “back it up.”  And if one cannot find facts, he then manufactures them (as Droleskey did) – by taking baseless allegations, then coating them with several layers of emotionalism “varnish,” and then presenting them as “facts.”  But when that varnish is stripped away, the hearsay – the naked lie – remains.

I believe that in this and previous articles, we have successfully stripped off this “varnish.”  What is now left is for people to realize this, and then for them to come forward and admit it.  For some, this will take humility – the humility to admit that they have been tricked by Dr. D’s “snake oil” (and have consequently rash-judged an innocent man).  But for everyone, on “both sides,” it will take something more than humility – something to which humility and every other virtue is subordinate -- it will take charity: the charity on the one side to admit error and to repent, and the charity on the other side to be magnanimous and forgiving.

So far, that charity has been forthcoming from one of those “sides”:  Bp. Petko has not only forgiven one of those (Florent Grassigli) who had formerly wronged him, but he and the Ritter family have even welcomed Florent (now Father Florent Gassigli) to come and stay with them in the Ritters’ home.  As to whether any charity will emanate from the “other side,” it would be a bit of a “stretch” to expect the two who did the most to smear Bp. Petko -- Droleskey and Ramolla -- to come forward, penitent and contrite.  But perhaps those who sided with them, either actively or by their “Pontius Pilate” acquiescence, could find the charity to “come forward.”  They will certainly benefit from having done so; for, when St. Paul said, “…but the greatest of these is charity,” he wasn’t just trying to be “eloquent” -- he was showing us a blueprint for our salvation.  Said another way: “Charity is the bottom line.”

__________________________________

** In the interest of brevity, we did not include detailed documentation (about the claim of fourteen hours) in the main body of our article; but for those who “require” it, the following chronological details are provided for their perusal:

This seminarian (the one allegedly “groomed” by Bp. Petko) did not actually meet Bp. Petko until early September 2011, at a pre-school year retreat (just prior to classes beginning), although he started corresponding with him (while he was still attached to the CMRI’s Mater Dei Seminary) a month or two earlier.  At the time, the seminarian was at home in Hawaii on summer vacation.  So, prior to September, there was no personal contact between him and Bp. Petko (nor any correspondence of significance).

On September 9, 2011, the seminarian arrived in Cincinnati to enter the newly formed St. Athanasius Seminary.  Classes at the seminary began on September 19 (a Monday).  Bp. Petko was called on to be a teacher at the seminary, and he gave classes on Tuesdays; therefore, his first class would have been on Tuesday, September 20.  Bp. Petko commuted from Indianapolis on Tuesday mornings, gave a 3-1/2 hr. class that afternoon, spent the night at a local parishioner’s house (the Scheelers), then gave another 3-1/2 hr. class the next day before leaving.  Note that at no time did he “overnight” with any of the seminarians.  Also note that his schedule gave him precious little “private time” with any one seminarian -- much less, an opportunity to do any “grooming.”

The “love letter” that the seminarian wrote to Bp. Petko was sent to him on October 15, 2011.  So, between the time that the seminarian first had any personal contact with Bp. Petko and the time of the “love letter’ was a grand total of less than a calendar month; and during that month, Bp. Petko’s total time at the seminary comprised four two-day stretches of 3-1/2 hours each, or twenty-eight hours total.  Of that twenty-eight hours, half was devoted to the one seminarian, and half to the other (there were two seminarians being taught).  That means that Bp. Petko had essentially fourteen hours in which to “groom” the seminarian in question (note also that there was little to no e-mail or phone traffic between them during that time).

Now, for one to accomplish “grooming” in that time frame seems downright miraculous: perhaps it was mental telepathy, or maybe the seminarian was smoking some substance which “augmented the experience.”  Or perhaps Bp. Petko did get some  “miraculous” help in grooming -- perhaps from….  the tooth fairy?  Rock Hudson’s ghost?  Elton John?  Dick Cheney’s daughter?  Actually, the only thing that strikes this writer as being truly “miraculous” is Droleskey’s miraculous imagination in concocting such a “grooming” fantasy.  And speaking of “miracles,” I’m sure that Dr. D himself is hoping for one: that we don’t write any more articles after this one (this is the last in a trilogy of Lay Pulpit articles reexamining three of Dr. D’s major charges against Bp. Petko).  But dream on, Doc: we’re not done with you yet – not by a long shot!