Saturday, March 30, 2013

Lie No. 2: The “Inappropriate Behavior with a Seminarian” Accusation

In our previous article, we examined Droleskey’s insinuations about Bp. Petko’s “inappropriate association” with Ryan Scott – which, in and of itself, is not enough to “condemn” anyone.  But that was merely Droleskey’s “appetizer.”  Now we come to the “main course”: his actual charge of Bp. Petko’s “inappropriate behavior” with a former seminarian named “Joseph.”  According to Droleskey (and, presumably, to Joseph’s “testimony”), Petko “squeezed his [Joseph’s] ‘fanny’.”  In his Retracting Support for Paul Petko, Droleskey repeated this allegation two times.  Why?  For effect, that’s why (in that same article, Droleskey also [wrongly] accused Gary Ritter of using “profane language.” That, too, was for “effect”).

Droleskey was using the same tactic that trial lawyers often use -- when they show, for instance, gruesome pictures of rape or murder victims: they do it for emotional impact – for effect.  They know that such emotionally charged sensationalism will sway juries – and it does.  Droleskey knew that conjuring up an image of a cleric fondling a young man would make people reel back in abhorrence – and it did: many people fell for this “emotionalism” imagery – “like an egg from a tall chicken.”  But if one dispassionately and objectively examines the real evidence, there isn’t any evidence.  In fact, upon closer examination, simple logical deduction refutes the allegation, as we’ll demonstrate a little later on.

This charge of “fanny squeezing” first surfaced in an “interview” conducted by Droleskey, where he (allegedly) asked Joseph pointed (and leading) questions.  According to the “interview,” Joseph first met Bp. Petko in March 2011; and at that time, when (allegedly) asked by Markus Ramolla what he (Joseph) thought of Bp. Petko, Joseph replied, “…I did not have a good impression of Petko.” Also, according to the interview, the “fanny squeezing” occurred sometime during the summer of 2011.  Joseph allegedly noted other “inappropriate behavior" as well; and, again, per the “interview,” he claimed that Petko gave him prolonged (several minutes') hugs; and he further quoted the Ritter’s son (who supposedly got the same hugs) as saying “after twenty minutes, you [Petko] should stop.”  Joseph allegedly added (after one of the seminarians asked him if the “fanny-squeezing” was “appropriate” behavior), “After one or two days of prayerful consideration, I concluded the obvious and realized that I was mistaken in how I had gone about everything with Bishop Petko.”

One or two days (!) of prayerful consideration??!!  One or two milliseconds should have sufficed!  Who are you trying to kid, Dr. D? (I say Dr. D, because I believe that it is he -- not Joseph -- who is the author of that fantasy).  No one in his right mind would have “stuck around” after being fondled that way (and that long!).   This, like the rest of Droleskey’s “interview,” is a fabrication of the warped doctor’s imagination; and both the questions and answers of this so-called “interview” were carefully orchestrated (or, rather, make that fabricated) by Droleskey – and by no one else.  Who on God’s earth would hesitate one second to call fanny squeezing “inappropriate behavior”?!  And why would one wait several months to report it in an “interview” that [conveniently] “just happened” to coincide with Droleskey’s witch-hunting timetable?  Why, after months of NO COMPLAINTS, did Bp. Petko’s behavior become a problem only after Droleskey arrived on the scene?

But Droleskey’s lie about Joseph’s “one or two days of prayerful consideration” pales in comparison to the claim of hugging someone for minutes.  Minutes?  (and, according to Droleskey’s “interview,” the Ritters’ son said – and I quote -- “twenty minutes”).  Even if this were an exaggeration, it’s obvious to even a moron that no one embraces someone for minutes – twenty or otherwise.  And, make no mistake, Droleskey was emphatic about it, as he stated, “..and I truly mean minutes..”   I suppose that it’s theoretically possible to maintain physical embrace with someone for several minutes; but, practically speaking, it’s impossible.  It wouldn’t and couldn’t happen – even “intermittently” (one would get muscle cramps in his arms long before that!).  The idea of someone maintaining an embrace for minutes is absurd; in fact, it’s beyond absurd.  The more one thinks about Droleskey’s fabrications – the “one or two days..” and “twenty minutes...” – the more utterly preposterous they become.

Droleskey, in his mad, vengeful rush to ruin Bp. Petko, embellished his story (again, for “effect”) – to an unrealistic, irrational degree. After one analyzes what he said, it becomes glaringly apparent.  That is just one of the many reasons why Droleskey “pulled” his article: he knew it would come back to haunt him.  Oh yes, and another thing: the Ritters’ son never made any such statement about “embracing for twenty minutes (not that any such disclaimer was necessary: the absolute absurdity of the statement itself is enough proof of its being counterfeit, and that it could never have been uttered by anybody).

And one last thing: Joseph visited Bp. Petko and the Ritters quite regularly during the months he was supposedly “abused”; and he had even planned to go to spend Thanksgiving with Bp. Petko and the Ritters that November (he cancelled those plans only after Droleskey got hold of him).  Why then would he even consider doing such a thing after having been “fanny-squeezed” – after having known about “inappropriate behavior” (and after having been its on-going victim for some six months prior to that)?  Why would he have wanted to take that risk?  Why would anybody?  Only an utter idiot would take such a risk!  The answer is that the risk did not exist.  It was all a lie.

Another thing: it was only Ramolla, Droleskey, “Joseph,” and the seminarians – all of whom shared a common “agenda” against Bp. Petko – who ever said anything about “inappropriate behavior.”  Fr. Hall didn’t.  None of Bp. Petko’s parishioners in Lizton did.  Absolutely no one else in Bp. Petko’s acquaintance did, before or since – only the “conspiratorial clique.”  Droleskey, in his diatribe, “hinted” several times about “inappropriate behavior.”  But, in every case, it was mere insinuation -- unsubstantiated hearsay -- that was eventually refuted (as the Diocese of Indianapolis did, when asked about Bp. Petko).  To repeat what Lay Pulpit previously reported, the Diocese responded emphatically that there was no evidence whatsoever of any “inappropriate” conduct by Bp. Petko.  Droleskey lied, pure and simple. 

The delusionary doctor also hinted that the Ritters’ son Chris had been “abused” earlier in life (presumably by his parents) and that there was an “inappropriate relationship” between him (the Ritters’ son) and Bp. Petko.  Chris not only vehemently denied these things, but challenged Droleskey (and some of the seminarians to whom Droleskey had spread his rumors) to retract them.  He tried contacting them at least five times, but none of them has ever responded.  They have (as Lay Pulpit reported once before) refused to answer his calls.  They who were so ready and willing (and “brave”) to come forward and smear an innocent man on a public internet forum are now hunkered down in their (to use Dr. D’s own words) “hidey-holes,” afraid to come out – afraid now to face those whom they have smeared.

To summarize, all of Droleskey’s “evidence” about “inappropriate behavior” was not just unsubstantiated hearsay; it was absurd.  Upon examination, after all the emotional hoopla has died down, it just doesn’t make any rational sense.  Droleskey’s “smoking gun” turns out to be all smoke and no gun.  And his “interview” with Joseph?  If it really ever took place, it was no doubt “staged” by Droleskey, with “loaded” questions and “pre-packaged” answers.  I doubt that “Joseph” ever said any of the things he supposedly did in that interview; and, if queried, my money says that he will “crack under pressure” and deny his former “testimony” -- especially when he realizes how preposterous it all is.  Another possibility, perhaps, is that one of his former “allies” in the plot against Bp. Petko will “turn state’s evidence” and confess to the sham (as “there is no honor among thieves”).  But, whether Joseph “comes clean” himself or is betrayed by a former “ally,” it doesn’t much matter, for the irrationality of his [his?] “testimony” should be embarrassingly apparent to anybody – with no such “recanting” necessary.

Well, so much for lie No. 2, the “inappropriate behavior” myth.  We’ll now close the book on that and turn our attention to Dr. D’s lie No. 3:  the charge of “grooming” one of the seminarians.  “Stay tuned.”

Thursday, March 28, 2013

"We Interrupt This Broadcast for a News Bulletin..."

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’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:


“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 +

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Lie No. 1: The “Association with Ryan Scott” Insinuation

Bp. Paul Petko lives in Lizton, Indiana (just west of Indianapolis), and resides with Mr. And Mrs. Gary and Kathy Ritter, who sponsor both him and the small Our Lady of Good Remedy chapel, located on their property.  The Ritters first met Ryan Scott (then “Abbot Ryan St. Anne”) when attending Mass at Holy Rosary Abbey in Galesburg, Illinois (they were there on a weekend trip to visit some friends).  After Mass, Scott invited them in for coffee, where they also met a Sister Mary Juliana.  After several get-togethers, Scott was invited to see the Ritters’ little chapel, which he did.  Things for a while were very cordial and “normal.”

But eventually Scott tried to tell the Ritters how to run their church (which, ironically, is exactly what Droleskey also tried to do later on).  Scott played the Ritters against (then) Fr. Petko, and vice versa.  His ultimate aim was to get the Ritters to split with Fr. Petko, and get them to sell their house and move to the abbey, where Gary would then be its “maintenance man” and Kathy its “cook.”  He tried to accomplish this by driving a wedge between them and Fr. Petko, telling the Ritters things such as “Fr. Petko has ‘problems” or “”he told me that he’ll lose his vocation if he stays here with you,” and then telling the Ritters things like “Father doesn’t like it here with you,” etc. – being careful always to tell them these contradictory things separately, when the Ritters and Fr. Petko were not within earshot of each other. 

One night, Scott told the Ritters something (about Fr. Petko) that didn’t make any sense at all, so they then confronted Fr. Petko face-to-face to find out if it were true.  Well, of course, it wasn’t.  They then spent several hours that night “comparing notes” with Fr. Petko, and found out that Scott was telling each of them “a bill of goods” in the hope of “driving them apart.”  At this point, they (both the Ritters and Fr. Petko) immediately disassociated themselves with Scott – and haven’t had anything to do with him since.  

In his article, Droleskey pointed out that Holy Rosary Abbey was, in his words, “a den of homosexual activity”; and, by some sort of “guilt by association” ploy, he tries to insinuate that Fr. Petko was part of it.  Plus, he fails to mention the fact that, when Fr. Petko and the Ritters found out who and what Scott was, they – as stated before – immediately disassociated themselves from him.  Up to the time that they “broke it off” with Scott, the Ritters had no inkling of any “homosexual activity” at the abbey, so this never came into play; but Droleskey’s insinuations were that they did know about all of this. But his insinuations are just that: insinuations; conjecture.  Droleskey tried to paint a “guilt by association” picture of Bp. Petko and the Ritters, with absolutely no data to back it up.

 As Lay Pulpit pointed out in its original refutation of Droleskey’s marathon treatise, accusing Bp. Petko of “guilt by association” with Ryan Scott is like blaming FDR and Churchill for their association with Joseph Stalin. Being associated with someone (or having known him) does not make one an “accomplice” or “partner in crime” with him.  The association of the Ritters with Scott – like their association with Droleskey, made them not accomplices but victims.  One might as well blame our Lord for His association with Mary Magdalene!  It makes just as much sense – at least in Droleskey’s mind!

Dr. Droleskey also well knew that Bp. Petko was a victim -- not an accomplice – of Ryan Scott; yet he did his best to paint the opposite picture.  In an earlier interview conducted by Droleskey, Bp. Petko related how he immediately disassociated himself from Scott (as did the Ritters).  The contents of this interview could be found on Droleskey’s Christ or Chaos website.  And in an earlier Lay Pulpit article, this interview was indeed “hyperlinked” as “backup data” to prove that Petko did, in fact, disassociate himself from Scott.  However, this hyperlink has been – you guessed it – pulled from the website, because it would put the lie to Droleskey’s insinuations to the contrary.  Droleskey’s actions here represent just one manifestation (of which there are others) of his duplicity and hypocrisy – and his stupidity -- for didn’t he realize that trying to “cover his tracks” later on by ditching the link would look “suspicious” or even incriminating (as it did with Richard Nixon when he erased his “Watergate” tapes)?  But scoundrels don’t think of that at the time – they think only of “getting rid of the evidence.”

But a skeptic -- especially one who is a die-hard “fan” of Dr. D -- might then counter, “Okay, but why would Dr. Droleskey be so vengeful?  That is, what reason would he have to be so vengeful as to victimize Petko in the first place?  The reason, as Lay Pulpit previously pointed out, was simple: the Ritters (who sponsor and support Bp. Petko) had “crossed” him, that is, they committed the extreme mistake of not letting him run their lives (and their chapel) -- an unpardonable sin on their part – and an affront to Dr. D’s monumental ego.  No doubt, too, that Bp. Petko’s sentiments mirrored those of the Ritters, so he would have incurred Dr. D’s wrath anyway.  For that, they all needed to be punished; and smearing their protégé Bp. Petko was his way of getting back at them – which he did.

But there was an added reason for Droleskey wanting to hurt Petko:  The “Ramolla” factor.  As was explained in a previous Lay Pulpit article, Dr. D had hooked up with Markus Ramolla, pastor of St. Albert the Great Church (“SAG”) at the time.  And Ramolla -- whose aspirations of becoming bishop date almost back to his seminary days -- wanted Bp. Petko (who was serving as SAG’s bishop at the time) out of the way -- to pave the way for himself becoming their bishop.  So, in getting Droleskey to discredit Bp. Petko (which Dr. D was only too happy to do), it solved Ramolla’s “problem”; and it provided Droleskey with a golden opportunity to not only hurt both Petko and the Ritters, but to “score some points” with Ramolla as well.  It was a perfect “fit.”

But “getting rid of Petko” required more “evidence” than just this flimsy insinuation of “inappropriate association” with Ryan Scott.  That, in and of itself, was not enough “dirt” on him – only a “good start.”  Dr. D also tried to dig up other “background dirt” on Bp. Petko (involving the Diocese of Indianapolis), including some outrageous claims such as “roller-skating in church”; but that diocese, after being contacted, responded (as we’ve also previously reported) by saying that there was absolutely no truth to Droleskey’s allegations. (For that reason – and because of the frivolous and absurd nature of the allegations – we will waste no more of the reader’s time giving “details” again.)

[But wasting the reader’s time is what Dr. D does best.  It’s one of the “mainstays” of his modus operandi: overwhelming the reader with “volume.”  Read through -- carefully -- everything that he has to say: the “common thread” that one will find throughout all his verbal barrage is that it contains no real proof but only “poof” – lots of “smoke,” but no real evidence.  Go ahead -- read through it all – and you’ll see what I mean.]

So, Droleskey knew that his repetitive, voluminous barrage of “background dirt” and his bogus  (and irrelevant) “Ryan Scott” insinuations were not what one could call real proof, but that they were good “credibility builders” (and that “repetition equals reinforcement”).  He also recognized that, although they were “blank bullets,” they were bullets just the same – and that these “preliminaries” would “soften up” the reader and put him in the right frame of mind for “the main event”: delivering his “one-two punch” (i.e., more convincing “evidence”) -- and that this “one-two punch” was really needed.  So, he dutifully manufactured it, with the help of his accomplices: Ramolla and his “seminarians.”  In the next (and later) articles, Lay Pulpit will examine this and other “evidence.”

Sunday, March 17, 2013

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!”