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.