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.”