I should clarify:

I have told people to lay off a bit, to give her a chance, and certainly to be charitable at all times. We can get the truth out, oppose evil, etc. all while maintaining a certain level of Catholic morality and decency. Right?

If she is 100% genuine, then we want to welcome her back to the fold (of sanity). We don't want to discourage others from coming forward.

Also, I want to believe she is 100% good and genuine.

That having been said --

I feel like I have been too rash and one-sided in my endorsement of Constance thus far. We shouldn't rush forward too fast, but instead proceed with all prudence.

1. She is a new member of this forum. A few people on here have met her once, but do they know her well?

2. She was formerly a big fan of Fr. Pfeiffer. Has she really "opened her eyes" to the situation there, or is she just pretending to?

3. She placed her E-mail address in her original testimony. Is she tasked with figuring out who has dirt on the group, so they can be dealt with individually? Basically a honeypot operation? Like the government starting a group "Take back the US Government - return to the Constitution!" which fishes out all those who think like this. Everyone in the group gets neutralized, killed, imprisoned, or at least put on a watch list.

4. The whole "Franciscan victim soul" shtick is questionable, from a rational Catholic doctrine point of view. That part of her story I always thought, "whatever". So while it seems that she is wiser about some things, she still might have a ways to go.

5. To be honest, my own intuition had a few questions about her, which haven't been adequately answered. I figured we should welcome her to the fold of sanity, and her testimonies don't seem much beyond what we've already heard from many other people. Still, there's something about her docile-naive-fighter-deceived-now awake situation that seems kind of strange.

6. Her story I believe. Even those who have raised questions about her persona admit that her story is likely true. Even as they throw suspicion on her, they corroborate and vouch for her story in the same breath!

7. Even her persona COULD be all true. Everything could be true at face value.

8. Today she told me what "lies" turned her off CathInfo -- the situation with M.S. (the young man) up north -- anyone remember that fiasco? His story lasted a whole 12 hours on CathInfo before I deleted it, attacked M.S. as a liar, and he ended up publicly apologizing. She told me today that she "sampled" CathInfo during that short 12 hour window, determined it to be a lie, and left.

9. Based on her location, and her own testimony, she should have known M.S. quite well.

Nevertheless, I leave us all with a single piece of advice -- BE CAREFUL. I don't 100% endorse Constance as being 100% truthful or 100% what she seems to be. Just because I don't want you to "pile on" or attack her doesn't mean I fully endorse her.

She could be a honeypot operation. There is no way to know for sure. It certainly wouldn't hurt to be careful. We shouldn't turn off our brains once we see a certain amount of truth -- that is the best way for a deceiver to deceive!

After all, if you want to deceive the people on CathInfo (a very shrewd bunch), you'd better coat that lie in a WHOLE LOT of sugar (truth) if you want to have any hope of it taking root here.

Remember the young man M.S. from up north? The one who claimed Pablo visited his house leading a protest, with a toilet paper roll as a megaphone? His nonsense only survived overnight on CathInfo. By morning, he was exposed. The blowback against him was so intense, he hasn't been back since. We have a lot of intelligent, prudent, street smart, and shrewd members on here.

In conclusion, I hope she is all that she claims to be. Hopefully, with enough of us "doing our homework", we can determine that to be the case. With time and experience, we can rightly come to trust her.

I met her in Boston last month. She talked with members of my family during our brief stay there. We did talk about the events at the seminary, some of which she covered in her letter.

Ok.

But again, that just verifies her STORY. I believe her STORY is true, and at least one other individual (who has been in touch with me by e-mail) believes it to be true as well, and this person is very much in touch with things there in Boston, KY.

However --

Can we trust her motivation? Is she gathering names and e-mail addresses for some purpose we don't know?

I must admit: It's possible.

It's funny that some young women are more comfortable spilling their guts (including identity) to a woman *they don't know, and have no real reason to trust* rather than signing up for an anonymous account on CathInfo and posting their story anonymously.

People are so easily fooled. That is a fact.

As for Constance, there are many things about her we don't know. She supported Fr. Pfeiffer from the very beginning (4 years ago) and has been "awakened" to the truth after just 22 days there. Wow.

I truly, honestly hope that's the case.

I'm not calling for hostility, lack of charity, or a new series of attacks on her -- only CAUTION and PRUDENCE.

Telling the truth here is not the same thing as doing the right thing with it.

Constance is finished.
Over and out.
Good Bye.

Constance is finished.
Over and out.
Good Bye.

Please do not take it personally Constance. It's the nature of the internet beast. If you haven't been online much then you haven't seen what insane hoaxes and multiple personalities and crazy frauds people come up with. And just for the fun of it! Or because they are deeply disturbed and looking for attention.

When people don't have much to say they aren't questioned so much but when they've got a big story then verification has to take place. I believed you immediately and then realized I shouldn't have even so quick. I have already gotten into the hornets nest with other members over wild stories so I have been trying to lay low this time. I stopped myself from messaging Matthew several days ago. I was hoping some known non-OLMC Canadian members would vouch for you at some point.

You must understand that to have someone drop out of the sky with a perfect story that validates everything CathInfo has been saying about KY is quite the "windfall", though this isn't the kind of thing people want to be right about. Nevertheless the questioning should assure you that we don't just believe any old story, even if it's about "enemies". This is ultimately a good thing. Truth will prevail so you shouldn't have anything to worry about, although I am sorry people may say unnecessarily harsh things in the meantime.

Please do not take it personally Constance. It's the nature of the internet beast. If you haven't been online much then you haven't seen what insane hoaxes and multiple personalities and crazy frauds people come up with. And just for the fun of it! Or because they are deeply disturbed and looking for attention.

When people don't have much to say they aren't questioned so much but when they've got a big story then verification has to take place. I believed you immediately and then realized I shouldn't have even so quick. I have already gotten into the hornets nest with other members over wild stories so I have been trying to lay low this time. I stopped myself from messaging Matthew several days ago. I was hoping some known non-OLMC Canadian members would vouch for you at some point.

You must understand that to have someone drop out of the sky with a perfect story that validates everything CathInfo has been saying about KY is quite the "windfall", though this isn't the kind of thing people want to be right about. Nevertheless the questioning should assure you that we don't just believe any old story, even if it's about "enemies". This is ultimately a good thing. Truth will prevail so you shouldn't have anything to worry about, although I am sorry people may say unnecessarily harsh things in the meantime.

This!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a big windfall, and it's to our credit here on CathInfo that we're not just "lapping this up like hungry dogs" because it's about our "enemies". We're truth seeking Catholics who rejoice in the truth, not in wickedness.

We are anxious to see truth and justice prevail. And of course like any human beings, we like to hear that we were right.

But in a case like this, a little voice SHOULD pipe up to keep us sane, "Are you sure this isn't too good to be true?"

That isn't to say we're going to dismiss this -- only that we intend to be careful. If you do not have a hidden agenda, you should have absolutely nothing to worry about.

So don't take it personally. Because I would have said this about *anyone* male or female, nice or mean. It's certainly part of the nature of the beast.

If you love God as much as you say you do, you'll put up with this small suffering -- it's certainly less than Pablo put you through, and you were willing to endure all that nonsense "to do God's will".

The saints underwent scrutiny like this all the time -- just look at ALL the seers of Our Lady. They all got put under a microscope.

As I've said in the other thread, I fully believe the crux of her testimony.  I perceive her agenda is to drama it up and to get even with Pfeifferville.

I don't believe that she dropped into CathInfo during the 12 hour M.S. episode and was scandalized and ran off--that's just too good of a story to be true.  But anyone who adamantly believes it, if you can convince me I will give you a real bargain on some ocean front property in Arizona.

I don't know whether she's really gullible enough to have fallen for the Pfeifferville scam or whether she thought she could swindle the swindlers.  That's how I believe the schismatic fraud debacle was born--everybody trying to get the better of the other--and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's how this situation came to pass.

So I do believe her story about Pfeifferville but I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw Fr. Pfeiffer.

And again--what business does a lay woman have starting up a convent out of the blue?

We should recall that we had a young man on here, named M.S., who indeed was out to get even with Fr. Pfeiffer for some reason -- only his story was a bald faced lie.

It's POSSIBLE that this woman came to visit only to gather a good anecdote, to be used as a weapon to take down the group.

Perhaps her "waking up" to the truth about Fr. Pfeiffer happened *much earlier* in her story than she let on -- as in, before she ever went to Boston, KY to volunteer.

I'm not saying that's the case, or even that it's likely -- but we have to be cautious and recognize that it's POSSIBLE.

I'm sorry that so much suspicion about Constance has been expressed.  I think, basically, that her motives were a lot more pure and less nefarious than those of a number of other forum members, to tell you the truth.  Constance was perhaps a bit more gullible and believing about OLMC than she ought to have been back in the day.  But come on!  She's no "honeypot operator," whatever that is.  This is a woman who acted in good conscience initially, but in the end  got caught up short by reality on the ground.   I'd gladly trade her straight up for at least five other denizens on Cathinfo