I can see there are a lot of strong emotions on this issue. As well as a sincere conviction *on all sides* that what one utters is the truth -- despite those statements being mutually contradictory.

I have no knowledge or indication that any member(s) in this thread are malicious or lying.

So you all are free to argue this until doomsday -- but leave me out of it.

That goes for you too, "SupportFrStarbuck", whose e-mail to me (complaining of his enemies in this thread) inspired this my post. You may be of good will, just trying to defend (who you believe to be) a good priest for example -- but I'll give you my IMPARTIAL opinion here (since I have no dog in this fight). The fact that your name is "SupportFrStarbuck" shows you to be EMINENTLY biased here; the polar opposite of "objective". So much so, that I bet you'd overlook things. Just saying. That would be a rational assumption by any third party unfamiliar with you or the situation in this chapel.

As I said above, that doesn't necessarily mean you're lying -- but it does shout to the world that you're anything but objective in the matter. That SHOULD be taken into account, by anyone trying to ascertain the truth in this situation. Let's be realistic and objective here: even horrible priests like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer have their fervent followers and apologists.