How much more proof will some people need to realize that Mr. Wiest is NOT a priest & shouldn't be called Fr.? or "Fr." It's a slap in the face to true priests so stop it.
So, you found him in lay clothing last year and he was found a very few years ago OPENING a buddhist junk shop (God knows how long it lasted). Not proof enough, in my mind that he is not a priest.
A decade or more ago I went on a little vacation. I met a very nice man and we talked at length about the Catholic Church. He was a maronite Catholic. Near the end of our conversation he told me he was a priest! He said he always wears lay clothing while on vacation so he is not inundated with people asking for this and that, much like a celebrity. He said he normally wears a cassock.
So, Wiest may have the same idea...
I am not saying he IS a priest, and I am not saying he ISN'T. I am only saying there is still some doubt.
His having OPENED a Buddhist junk shop a very few years ago is more proof to me than the lay clothing last year, and even then it is STILL possible he is a priest. How many priests did b. slupski ordain without so much as year of training?
His Buddhist altar in his home is real cause for concern, but that is also not proof he is not a priest.
What the rhubarb, junk shop, altar, refusing to provide docuмentation, etc
does prove is that he is someone to stay away from.
You need more concrete proof before calling him "Mr.", for if you are mistaken think of the detraction and scandal you have caused.
(And no, I am not Wiest. I am the one who found his Buddhist junk shop.)