Some people here, including myself, took the rumors that were passed around about Bp. Petko at face value, thinking there was eyewitness proof or whatever.

It appears that not many have actually read Thomas Droleskey's article, because he doesn't have proof of anything.  Here is his "proof" that Bp. Petko is suspect of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.  This is an account given by a nameless seminarian under Bp. Petko:  

"The day of my ordination, in the morning, I went at the Guest House to speak with Bp. Petko before the ceremony. I talked to him a long time and expressed my joy concerning the opening of St. Athanasius Seminary, and —as I told him— to have superiors who truly care and love us. That’s where he got very emotional, stood up, did a sign with his hand telling me to stand as well, embraced me longly, and kissed me in the neck at least twice, and repeatedly said: ‘I love you; I love you my son.’

The embrace with kisses in the neck happened one more time.

While Bp. Petko would talk for hours about his friendships, affections, emotions and different similar topics, he said once: ‘If you would show your affection to someone, and if you would go too far… well, just go to confession, and be more prudent next time.’ If confession is required, this means a mortal sin is involved. Those words indeed worried me a lot for I was amazed that a Bishop could deal so lightly with sin."

Firstly, we are counselled to go to confession for venial sins, not just mortal sins; we just don't HAVE to go for venial sins.  So already this seminarian is way off base.

Secondly, the venial sin involved may be giving scandal unintentionally.  I have a very close female friend.  If I were a priest, what if one day I threw my arm around her and nuzzled her ear?  My intentions would be innocent, but it would probably be a venial sin.

His quote just taken out of context and thrown out there does look weird; but it is not proof of anything whatosever.  And if this guy really was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator, would he be that blatant about it right away?

Yes, kissing someone on the neck is a bit odd.  But is it reason enough to even suspect ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ ACTIVITY?  Not even close.  Maybe he is just some eccentric emotional Eastern European -- I'm guessing he is Polish, and let me tell you as a half-Pole, we are highly emotional people.  Or maybe he does have leanings in that way, but doesn't act on them except in these little ways.  Or maybe he is starved for affection in general.  But kissing someone on the neck is not proof of anything.  Males kiss other males on the cheek in Europe.  What if he was going for the cheek and kind of hit the back of the neck instead?

Look, a male who is celibate might, for many reasons, become more affectionate in this way than other males.  We have all heard the people murmuring that Cardinal Newman was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because he cried copiously over a dead friend -- it has been rightly pointed out that this is unjust suspicion, and the rumors about Bp. Petko fall under the same category.  Even St. Augustine writes somewhere about how one of the best relationships he had was with a male friend, when they were both learning about the faith and were extremely close.

The way all this was presented to me, it made it sound like Bp. Petko was caught in flagrante delicto.  That could not be farther from what really happened.  Just thought others should know about this.  It's also notable that Droleskey does not give the name of this seminarian who provides the bulk of the non-evidence here.

Just so people get a sense of how scrupulous and judgmental Droleskey really is, here are some choice examples:  

"Seminarian B sought true spiritual affection from Bishop Petko, who promised him in one e-mail that 'I will never allow you to be starved for affection.' A well-formed Catholic bishop would teach a young man to have a sense of detachment from creatures, seeking whatever consolation he needs in times of desolation from prayer spent before the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God, both of which are integral parts of Seminarian B's priestly life but were not fostered by the time he spent with Bishop Petko."

So Bp. Petko didn't say exactly what Thomas Droleskey would say in the same situation -- what an evil man!  

Bishop Dolan also mentioned something that I had first learned from a layman who wrote to me in 2005. Bishop Dolan told me in the summer of 2009 that Jonathan Romanowski had told Father Cekada that a copy of Playboy magazine with the name of “Father Paul Petko” on a printed address label had been forwarded to the chancery office in Indianapolis after Petko had left Australia in November of 1999 following a two month stay there.

Playboy?  So which is it?  Is he a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or does he like women?  Not to mention that this could have been a prank played on Petko, or someone trying to destroy his reputation.  But Droleskey is eager to dig up any possible dirt that he can find and repeat it.

Thomas Droleskey's site should be boycotted.  This man is causing nothing but trouble.  

You know who comes out smelling like an absolute rose in all of this?  Father Martin Stepanich, who warned both Droleskey and Eamon about what they were doing. The warning was not heeded and here are the results.

What was Droleskey's reason for leaving CMRI?  I think he saw a nun in jogging pants, or else some of the nuns were in bathing suits by the pool ( thinking they were in private, perhaps forgetting that Thomas Droleskey is an omnipresent sleuth much like Tintin ).  
I can't remember which.  He actually left the CMRI because of something like that; which shows you where his mind is at.  He is a classic victim of that Little House on the Prarie American-style Fiftiesist idealism, nothing is ever good enough or ideal enough for him.  But Catholics are called upon to suffer from the imperfections of others, not take up arms against all of them -- except in certain circuмstances.  This "righter of wrongs" shtick that Droleskey traffics in will only end up making him more and more miserable.  And every year, we get another tale of "horrible tragedy" from him.

Why DID Droleskey part ways with the CMRI?

I'm not sure that his physical departure from the CMRI was ideological, but due to his personal preferences.  Droleskey, a native New Yorker, has written that he prefers big east coast cities (he writes this in his book, There Is No Cure for this Condition, a biographical account of his early years and his obsession with the New York Mets.  The CMRI is most active in the western and northern U.S., so it appears that he may have left the geographical outposts of the CMRI because Spokane and Omaha are just not his cup of tea.

He never deletes anything from his website.  Even if he later says the article was wrong, he adds a note to the introduction because he believes that he must "preserve the record" at all costs.

I've been searching his archives and it seems that, for a short while he was giving nothing but praise to the CMRI.  I have been unable to find anything about jogging or swimming CMRI nuns on his site.  My search was not all-encompassing, but it seems the last article that had something good to say about the CMRI was posted in March, 2011.  His first article condemning the CMRI seems to have been posted in September, 2011.  Something happened between March and September.

The only thing that happened was that two or three seminarians from the CMRI seminary decided to leave Omaha and seek seminary training from Father Romolla in Ohio.  It is also the period when Droleskey left Indiana for Ohio.

In September, 2011, Droleskey complained that the CMRI was teaching "Natural Family Planning" and organ transplantation were morally acceptable.  Droleskey has declared that the Church forbids married couples to abstain from marrital relations whereas the CMRI insistes that it teaches exactly what Pope Pius XII taught.  Droleskey has declared that brain death is false and that all organ transplants are evil.  The CMRI insists that it teaches that it doesn't know if brain death is false, the Church, through the time of Pope Pius XII had not yet made any definititve declaration, and that the CMRI is not competent to make a binding judgment on the issue.  It also seems that the seminarians who left the CMRI seminary were the sources of this information.

It seems to me that Droleskey's condemnation of the CMRI came about because he determined that the CMRI did not bind the consciences of the faithful in matters of marrital relations and organ transplants according to the Droleskey Magisterium.

I don't know for sure from where the animosity Droleskey has with the CMRI, but this is my conclusion from reviewing his website.  If I have missed something, I welcome correction.

I admit that it sounds kind of weird but the person whom Bp. Petko is alleged to have kissed on the neck is not a child.

The "Playboy" allegation is a bit much. Bp. Dolan told Dr. Droleskey that Jonathan Romanowki told Fr. Cekada that ... ? So by the time Dr. Droleskey hears of it, it is three steps removed from the source (Fr. Romanowski -> Fr. Cekada -> Bp. Dolan -> Dr. Droleskey).

I agree that Droleskey should not have publicly written that stuff on Petko. It is none of the world's business. He could have simply wrote generically of Petko's dismissal as not being fit to be an authority at their "seminary" and having been further separated entirely from his services as a bishop for serious reasons. It should have been left at that. We presume that Fr. Ramolla gave Droleskey the go-ahead for writing that publicly, so the problem really is with Fr. Ramolla.

And would you presume Fr. Cekada knows of and approves of the recent youtube videos by Eddiehaskell999?

Take a look at the "tags" on this video.



I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Quote from: SJB

And would you presume Fr. Cekada knows of and approves of the recent youtube videos by Eddiehaskell999?





.

 :roll-laugh1:

Maybe he wrote the screenplay!

Dodge.  

:chef:

Yes, the universal symbol :chef: for the acknowledgment of a dodge. Keep baking.

I admit that it sounds kind of weird but the person whom Bp. Petko is alleged to have kissed on the neck is not a child.

The "Playboy" allegation is a bit much. Bp. Dolan told Dr. Droleskey that Jonathan Romanowki told Fr. Cekada that ... ? So by the time Dr. Droleskey hears of it, it is three steps removed from the source (Fr. Romanowski -> Fr. Cekada -> Bp. Dolan -> Dr. Droleskey).

As noted above it could have been a prank or an attempt to discredit him.  What priest, who actually subscribed to a pornographic magazine, would use the title
"Father" while doing so?

Elizabeth, European men kiss each other on the face.  They can be very slobbery and affectionate.

Of course, I'd have to see what actually happened.  If he passionately gave a seminarian a hickey, that's another story.  But to go for someone's cheek and kind of kiss him in the neck area, is just Euro.  Maybe he was hugging him and his face was by the guy's neck.  Sorry, I am not going to call a bishop a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because of that.

And I see no reason why I should necessarily believe this seminarian against a bishop.  How do I know the seminarian isn't the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?  They are certainly out there.  Frankly, I didn't get a good feeling from the seminarian at all, the way his story was written, it sounded very scattershot.  It just didn't click at all for me.  I can't explain why, that's just how it is.  And the way Droleskey was flinging any kind of mud he thought would stick didn't help.

If it turns out Bp. Petko is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, please don't come back and tell me I was protecting a predator.  I am just saying that what Droleskey presents isn't enough evidence.  If this is evidence, then you might as well get back on board with the anti-SGG gang and say Bp. Dolan is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because he has a lisp and is inseparable from Father Cekada.  This is what's called a negative doubt, not a positive doubt -- just learned about those terms from my priest and it has been very helpful.

TKGS said:

I've been searching his archives and it seems that, for a short while he was giving nothing but praise to the CMRI.  I have been unable to find anything about jogging or swimming CMRI nuns on his site.

A priest at CMRI told me the story, but I forgot the details.  It was either seeing a nun in jogging pants or seeing them in bathing suits.  The CMRI nuns do go swimming but my understanding is they have a private retreat, no men can see them there.