I received a note that there is a defense of Bishop Petko posted online at:

http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2012/01/retracting-support-for-paul-petko.html

This is a defense against the writing of Thomas Droleskey that was recently discussed on this forum.  I am not privvy to all of the information presented by Droleskey or the writer of the docuмent above, however, I do have first-hand knowledge of some of the events discussed in both forums and I found that Droleskey's work contains inaccuracies and I know of no inaccuracies in this new docuмent (not saying that there aren't any, but I don't know of any).

I think, perhaps, that people should read this docuмent before forming opinions of Bishop Petko.  

I don't know who runs this Lay Pulpit site, but this is the site that if stumbled upon that linked me to CathInfo.

This is more an attack on Dr. Droleskey and Fr. Ramolla than it is a defense of Bp. Petko.   Jim Gebel and The Lay Pulpit site used to be firmly behind the former, but the tide has turned.  Jim has let the events of the last three years or so consume him, and I think it will be detrimental to his physical and, more importantly, his spiritual welfare.  I think the same of those who've devoted the last several years to 'exposing' Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, SGG, and now Fr. Ramolla and Dr. Droleskey, after previosuly defending them.

Further divisions.  Further confusion.  Of course, there is a reason why the situation exists, but I've forgotten what 'peace' and a normal Catholic life should look like.

Simple Catholic:

Further divisions. Further confusion. Of course, there is a reason why the situation exists, but I've forgotten what 'peace' and a normal Catholic life should look like.

This observation pretty well sums up the current situation. Stay tuned-in for the weather may change, and your mileage may vary.

What a mess. Time to blow it up and start over completely from scratch.  Not much to pick from here.  Move along, nothing to see here.

 

Their spiritual life would be much better.

And this is rather presumptuous on your part, don't you think?

Quote from: Elizabeth

 

   I can't believe you are promoting the LayPulpit.  

   Of course it links to Cathinfo because the Cabal are active here.

I'm not promoting the Lay Pulpit.  I'm promoting this docuмent.  As I said, I have a small amount of personal knowledge about the situation (and none concerning SGG or Fr. Ramolla).  I know that there were inaccuracies in the Droleskey article.  I know of no inaccuracies in the Lay Pulpit article.

That is all.

I think it would be difficult to determine what is and what is not inaccurate.  Jim Gebel has certainly let us know where he stands on what Dr. Droleskey states as facts in his "Retraction", and he has disputed many of the facts presented, but to say that the Lay Pulpit article is necessarily the more accurate, how does one do that?   I mean, the sources for each man's position are the same witnesses or persons involved.

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Elizabeth

 

   I can't believe you are promoting the LayPulpit.  

   Of course it links to Cathinfo because the Cabal are active here.

I'm not promoting the Lay Pulpit.  I'm promoting this docuмent.  As I said, I have a small amount of personal knowledge about the situation (and none concerning SGG or Fr. Ramolla).  I know that there were inaccuracies in the Droleskey article.  I know of no inaccuracies in the Lay Pulpit article.

That is all.

"We on the other hand, DO have facts, we DO have proof.  Written proof that Fr. Ramolla IGNORED Fr. Hall both in salary and in his visa process.  We DO have proof that at least one of the seminarians wrote a letter (that we have) that any court anywhere will say is the letter of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  And, as it turns out, there is also proof that Fr. Ramolla has engaged in past "transgressions" both at SAG and at another satellite church location.  Several parishoners have knowledge of it-and an increasing number of people outside the "sphere" are aware of it too.

It is ironic that Bp.Petco on whom there is NO evidence, has been villified and had his good name destroyed; and that Fr. Ramolla, on whom there IS evidence, hassuffered no injury.  But the truth will eventually come out, and so will Fr. Ramolla's credibility evaporate.  The lid will not stay on the kettle for long."

So you are promoting this docuмent?  

As early as November 2009, Jim Gebel also had "proof" that Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada were sodomites, and that they were getting ready to flee SGG.  Jim is long on talking "proof', but isn't too trustworthy when it comes to producing the much heralded "proof".  And a vague reference to "past 'transgressions'", referring to Fr. Ramolla, is much the same way he treated Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan.  

As early as November 2009, Jim Gebel also had "proof" that Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada were sodomites, and that they were getting ready to flee SGG.  Jim is long on talking "proof', but isn't too trustworthy when it comes to producing the much heralded "proof".

SC, where did he say this?

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: SC

As early as November 2009, Jim Gebel also had "proof" that Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada were sodomites, and that they were getting ready to flee SGG.  Jim is long on talking "proof', but isn't too trustworthy when it comes to producing the much heralded "proof".

SC, where did he say this?

I remember it in the "Ode" or some related thread in the early, heady days of the SGG controversy.  You probably read and/or heard the same thing; it shouldn't be something you've not seen repeated here in this forum hundreds of times or from your comrades.  The websites which multiplied shortly thereafter continued the calumny.  It was common knowledge that Gebel was the one primarily responsible for spreading that tale, and then promptly backed down when asked to provide the evidence.

I don't think Gebel had ever posted anything in the "ode" but I can check. Didn't that Hobson character come here and attack Gebel? That's what I remember.