Should the title of the thread then be changed, since there was a retraction issued? Readers just scanning the thread titles would get the idea that Boston has been charged with scamming, or worse. The scandals in Boston are bad enough, they don't need to be embellished or sensationalized. Just sayin... ( Maybe something like " Boston seminarians caught proselytizing while wearing controversial hat."?)

You are right, the scandals in Boston are pretty bad.

Perhaps:
Boston, KY, going door to door seeking congregation members and money.

I wonder how much they got?

This is too funny! The one in the foreground is 20 years old and his initials are SK. The one in the background I have seen but don't know his name. These "seminarians" are not even tontured. SK's brother was also a seminarian but rumor has it that he was sent to the Philippines to start a mission (being only 17 or 18 years old) and failed, so was either sent back to his parents or his parents pulled him out.  These young men are probably out collecting money because their primary benefactor has died and the family can not and will not give another dime to that cultish group.

While I can't say that I'm a fan, I believe it was clearly determined that they were not begging, at least not for lucre.

How was it clearly determined that they were not out asking for money? It looks like they asked the Pfeiffer group. And I know they are not the most truthful people. Just saying.

1. Did you see the retraction?
2. Did you note the entity that published said retraction?
3. If they were hitting people up for money, then don't you think that the following could make such a determination?
 1. The staff of "The Kentucky Standard"
 2. The BPD.

We may be hicks but would you at least extend a bit of benefit of doubt that we, being from KY, have some horse sense at least collectively speaking?

Also, being a "small town" kinda place, how likely is it that word wouldn't get around that they were out hitting people up for money?

We don't get to be unjust or uncharitable to entities that we don't like, nor to be dishonest about them.

Finally, at least for now, let's say that they were; what then becomes clear is that neither the local authorities, nor the media were able to adequately substantiate such.

"Just sayin'"

Clear enough?

1. Did you see the retraction?
2. Did you note the entity that published said retraction?
3. If they were hitting people up for money, then don't you think that the following could make such a determination?
 1. The staff of "The Kentucky Standard"
 2. The BPD.

We may be hicks but would you at least extend a bit of benefit of doubt that we, being from KY, have some horse sense at least collectively speaking?

Also, being a "small town" kinda place, how likely is it that word wouldn't get around that they were out hitting people up for money?

We don't get to be unjust or uncharitable to entities that we don't like, nor to be dishonest about them.

Finally, at least for now, let's say that they were; what then becomes clear is that neither the local authorities, nor the media were able to adequately substantiate such.

"Just sayin'"

Clear enough?

"We?" I didn't know that this would be so personally taken. Clear enough? Most definitely. 

Thanks for eliminating yourself from further serious consideration, it saves time so I appreciate that at least.

By all means, "sin boldly".

I tried.

Oh my goodness. Who do you think you are? This is the same rhetoric that Boston spews all time. Thank you for outing yourself. And who do you think you are to call me out on sin? I never accused the group of taking money, although it wouldn't surprise me if they did. All I claimed was that they are dishonest. And I never claim anything that I can not prove. 

I really hope and pray that Father Pfeiffer and his followers can put their differences with Bishop Williamson and Bishop Zendejas aside. It certainly seems the division is not helping Father Pfeiffer financially.