You can't just say this without some examples as evidence.  Otherwise, this also borders on calumny.  It's one thing to argue that something is NOT evil, and quite another thing to justify evil.  In claiming that he justified evil, you're begging the question that what he was justifying was in fact evil.  What I suspect you mean is that Father Hewko argued that something you believe to be evil is not in fact evil.  One might be a mistake or error in judgment, while the other one indicates malice ... so it's very important that you be clear on what you mean by this.

Sounds like the poison of the Boston cult still flows through Fr. Hewko's veins, if what you say is true.

Fr. Pfeiffer took a very extremist and CONTRADICTORY position on the Crisis in the Church. In most ways, he sounded like a Sedevacantist. But actually the Sedevacantist position is more coherent than Fr. Pfeiffer's position. And Fr. P certainly diverges from +ABL. But then Fr. P attacks Sedevacantism with a passion -- except when he uses Sedevacantist bishops for Orders. It's hard to know WHAT he really believes. Probably whatever the latest potential donor with deep pockets firmly believes...

He diverged from Archbishop Lefebvre, who he claimed to follow, while accusing his "competitors" of being unfaithful to +ABL's position and work. But +ABL never said the Novus Ordo was always and in all places invalid. Nor did he say that miracles were impossible outside the world of the Traditional Movement, after the year 1969.

We've discussed Valtorta plenty of times here and I don't care to have another thread on it at this time. Suffice to say: YES you can work closely with Bishop Williamson and disagree with him about Valtorta. Or Garabandal for that matter. +W has private opinions and he doesn't force them on others as a pre-condition for working with him, or for not getting attacked by him. That is indeed how Fr. Pfeiffer operates -- you have to fully agree with him, or it's war! But that's not how +W operates.

Unlike certain cult leaders *cough Fr. Pfeiffer cough*, Bp. Williamson is able to distinguish between dogma and opinion. And between denial of dogma (heresy) and disagreement on matters of opinion (completely permitted).

But of course, Fr. Pfeiffer is a human being, and so he ends up being a classic case of PROJECTION -- removing flaws from yourself and projecting them onto your adversary. But that still doesn't make it true!

And if these vagus priests can't get past the personality and quirks of +W, then go with another good Resistance bishop. Might I suggest Bp. Faure, Bp. Zendejas, or Bp. Thomas Aquinas?

Perhaps in the mind of Fr. Pfeiffer, +Williamson is a heretic for advocating that "one can go to the NO if it helps their spiritual life". Since +Faure, +Zendejas and +Thomas Aquinas continues to work with +Williamson and didn't denounce that statement, anyone who supports +Williamson is persona non grata.

Not everything is a matter of dogma or heresy.

My Liturgy professor used to throw away copies of the "Pieta" booklet he found at the Seminary literature table that people had placed there. He told the whole Liturgy class he considered the Pieta "Spiritual shit". And yes, that's a direct quote.

Is the Pieta heretical? I've seen it at many SSPX chapels. Meanwhile this particular professor felt very strongly about it.

No, he objected to the book with the various prayers and devotions, not the statue.

BTW I thought my post was quite clear -- I said "Pieta booklet" once, then the rest of the post I said "Pieta" for short. I thought I was quite clear in defining what I was talking about.

I heard a priest object to it once, because it seemed to him that so many of the prayers in it had some sort of "promise" - "Say this prayer X times at such-and-such time of day for Y days & you're guaranteed to get Z!"  To him, it was like making God into a "vending machine".