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.