“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.

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! 

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.”

"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 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 +