Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?  (Read 123422 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline drew

  • Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 399
  • Reputation: +1122/-239
  • Gender: Male
Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
« Reply #240 on: March 26, 2016, 06:26:36 AM »
  • Thanks!9
  • No Thanks!1
  • This discussion brings up a serious question.  When should sound suspicions regarding a cleric be shared with others?  Only after a criminal conviction related to child porn?  With Tetherow there were many signs of serious problems before this criminal indictment that were excused.  Bishop Timlin did nothing about a problem that Bishop Martino addressed within a month of taking over the Diocese of Scranton.  Traditional Catholics were left to their own resources for discovery of any problems.

    Our Mission began with Mass offered one Sunday a month and worked up to every Sunday and Holy Day over several years before having a resident priest.  We engaged different priests to offer a Mass from time to time to fill the schedule so we have had about 15 to 20 priests who have helped us over the years.  We have made an effort to do due diligence examination into their backgrounds but we have made two mistakes.  One was because information was withheld and the other because we were intentionally given false information.  We have also refused two priests who offered to help.  What is common to occur is that Catholics cover up for priests.  There was considerable evidence regarding Tetherow that was withheld by responsible sources that we learned about only after he was discharged.  

    In these posts regarding Tetherow I have tried to only discuss what can be easily proved in the external forum which was enough for the Novus Ordo Church to laicize him after a canonical investigation lasting ten years.  Except for the procedure of administrative laicization that Benedict XVI established in 2008, which can only be used in very restricted cases that must unquestionably meet stringent criteria, a thorough canonical trial is always required to laicize any priest against his will.  Ten years is a long time to consider objective facts before making a judgment.  It clearly is not taken lightly.  All the information that was used in Tetherow’s laicization should have been made available to every Catholic.

    But at the same time, I have a number of personal things I have witnessed and other well grounded suspicions of a deep seated moral corruption that, if true, are far more damnable than what the tribunal considered in making their judgment.  Should this information be shared with everyone?  Perhaps, because, despite the public information on this pervert, he still has a following of Catholics who believe him to be an unjustly persecuted priest.  

    Tetherow is not just your common habitual liar.  Habitual liars (compulsive liars or pathological liars) just lie all the time but the lying is not typically goal directed and it is not typically associated with malice.  Tetherow’s lying is always goal directed even though he is often caught in lies that don’t seem to have any reason behind them, at least any reason that is clearly evident.  A sociopath (psychopath) is a liar who always has a clear purpose for telling lies.  Even though the consequences of lying are not well thought out by a sociopath, he always assumes that he can just tell another lie to avoid any problems.  The sociopath has no shame or regard for the rights of others while the habitual liar often regrets his lies when confronted.  More importantly a habitual liar can be helped by others to recognized and overcome the problem.  A sociopath knows he is a liar but he doesn’t care.  He has no remorse.  With indifference to the consequences of lying, the sociopath cannot be helped.  Once when Tetherow was caught in a public notorious lie he did apologize from the pulpit dripping in tears begging to be forgiven.  The apology was directed at one parishioner who he could not afford to offend.  The apology was just another lie.  A sociopath only repents when he’s caught or sees it as a profitable move.    

    Quote from: Robert D. Hare, PhD
    “Psychopaths (sociopaths) are social predators who charm, manipulate and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations and empty wallets.  Completely lacking in conscience and feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.” Robert D. Hare, PhD


    Quote from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, i.e.: a sociopath or psychopath
    Sociopath (psychopath) is a medical diagnosis called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), lists the diagnostic criteria as:
    The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose Antisocial Personality Disorder, the following criteria must be met:

    1.   Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
    a.   Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
    i.   Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
    ii.   Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of pro-social internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
    AND
    b.   Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
    i.   Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
    ii.   Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
    2.   Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
    a.   Antagonism, characterized by:
    i.   Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.
    ii.   Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
    iii.   Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism.
    iv.   Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
    b.   Disinhibition, characterized by:
    i.   Irresponsibility: Disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises.
    ii.   Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
    iii.   Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self - damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.
    3.   The impairments in personality functioning and the Individual’s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
    4.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
    5.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
    6.   The individual is at least age 18 years.

    We have specific examples of Tetherow meeting every one of these positive diagnostic criteria.  

    I have not seen Tetherow in nearly six years but only last week I was told another story of him being caught in lie.  He told a group of Catholics that he had never met a certain priest before at any time.  A sixteen year old girl present quietly told her mother that he was lying.  She knew he was lying because six years ago this coming June this young girl was in the company of my wife when she drove the priest to meet Tetherow.  This priest wanted to meet Tetherow so it was arranged at the rental property of one of Tetherow’s she-women.  He spent most of the afternoon alone with Tetherow.  The mother of the young girl who passed on this story wondered why Tetherow would deny ever meeting this priest.  It seemed to her to be a lie without any reason, thus easier to dismiss.  Well, one very good reason is that this priest told me and my wife shortly after he had spoken in detail with Tetherow that he exercised an unnatural influence upon this woman in question and that ‘Tetherow and this woman had broken the sixth commandment.’   I did not ask him how he came to this conclusion.  When I called Tetherow a habitual liar, I was avoiding the more damming accusation that he is a “sociopath.”  It is easier to forgive a habitual liar than a sociopath.  It was Fr. Casimir Peterson, who just turned 95 years this month but still a priest and canon lawyer of sound mind who has helped our Mission from its beginning, after his investigation said plainly that Tetherow was a “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ” and “con-man.”  A “con-man” is just the everyday language for sociopath (psychopath).

    How does a sociopath function as a priest?  The answer is that I don’t think he can but it’s not uncommon to see.  It is my opinion that there is a much greater incidence of sociopaths among ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs than heterosɛҳuąƖs because both are goal directed at self-satisfaction at the expense of others.  The love of a sociopath is like the love a man has for pizza.  It is a consuming love that destroys the thing loved.  Now, by some estimations, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs make up as much as 50% of the Novus Ordo clergy, it is not be surprising to find sociopaths common among clerics.  Actually, as a profession for personal profit, a sociopathic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can hardly find a better job.  The clerical collar is a very convincing cover for sociopathic behavior.  

    I served Tetherow’s weekday Mass daily for about two years.  Kneeling directly behind him to elevate his chasuble at the consecration, I never once, not once, heard him pronounce the words of consecration during Mass.  I could hear nothing.  I have discussed this with other priests and they have told me that the form of the sacrament is to be said in a low voice, not an inaudible voice, for if the voice is inaudible there is no sensible form that is necessary for a valid sacrament.  It is no longer an “outward sign.”  I don’t believe that he consecrated the sacrament.  His abuse of the confessional was just as bad.  He routinely pried into areas of the conscience of penitents that were none of his business and have nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament.  He frequently told penitents confidential information, often lies, which he then bound to secrecy.  

    To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

    What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.  

    Tetherow habitually employs a Bela Lugosi “Look into my eyes” routine when he wants to impress his truthfulness on anyone.  He has tried it on me and my wife.  I found it weird and told him to knock it off.  My wife found it disturbing.  

    Maybe the question to ask Fr. Pfeiffer is, “Have you been exorcised by Tetherow?”

    I was responsible for bringing Tetherow to the York, PA area.  When he was discharged for cause on the advice of Fr. Casimir Peterson, about which Fr. Arthur DeMaio was informed and was in agreement, and legal counsel.  Fr. Peterson told me that I have an obligation to make known the information I had to inform faithful Catholics.  The revelation of the facts alone should be sufficient but still there are traditional Catholics who believe that this convicted felon on child porn charges is an unjustly persecuted holy priest.  This is a serious moral problem for Catholics who are trying to keep the faith and its necessary ecclesiastical traditions outside of normal governing structures that worked in the past and which no longer work even in the Novus Ordo structures.

    In spite of these past problems, I strongly believe that the structure of our Mission in York is the best under these circuмstances in which we practice our faith today.  I would be willing to discuss what and why they are to anyone considering establishing an “independent” chapel.  

    Wishing a blessed Easter to all.  Christ is Risen; Indeed He is Risen.  

    Drew

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32693
    • Reputation: +28974/-581
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #241 on: March 26, 2016, 06:33:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Recusant Sede,

    To answer your question,

    YES Greg Taylor is a liar and a tool of Fr. Pfeiffer. To that entire group* (Pablo, Fr. Pfeiffer, Greg Taylor, "Maccabees", etc.) the ends justifies the means.

    They will pore over a priest's sermon, looking for some "weak link" they can exploit and twist into some kind of error or heresy. Nevermind the TRUTH, or what the priest truly stands for (looking at his doctrine, behavior, or history as a whole). They treat life like a game of Axis and Allies, where winning (conquering the board) is all that matters, and that "no one ever remembers who came in 2nd".

    *Note: I'm not saying everyone who supports (or is favorable to) Fr. Pfeiffer is like this, but there is certainly an "inner circle" that is guilty of this.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32693
    • Reputation: +28974/-581
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #242 on: March 26, 2016, 10:51:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ManuelChavez
    Quote from: Matthew
    Recusant Sede,

    To answer your question,

    YES Greg Taylor is a liar and a tool of Fr. Pfeiffer. To that entire group (Pablo, Fr. Pfeiffer, Greg Taylor, "Maccabees", etc.) the ends justifies the means.



    I don't think in such a manner, and neither does anyone in my family. Everything, from beginning to end, must be done to please God. Unjust and sinful means do not please God.


    *Note: I'm not saying everyone who supports (or is favorable to) Fr. Pfeiffer is like this, but there is certainly an "inner circle" that is guilty of this.

    I wasn't referring to you.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #243 on: March 28, 2016, 11:33:23 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • So is there enough to say that Fr. Pfeiffer is associating himself with convicted child porn harborers? Is there a concisae explanation for this?
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #244 on: March 28, 2016, 03:14:10 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica


    So is there enough to say that Fr. Pfeiffer is associating himself with convicted child porn harborers? Is there a concisae explanation for this?


    Perhaps Pablo needs another "amateur exorcist"? Many people are aware of Mr. Tetherow being an exorcism enthusiast. He even mentioned it in his sermons.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9310
    • Reputation: +9120/-872
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #245 on: March 28, 2016, 05:01:31 PM »
  • Thanks!10
  • No Thanks!0
  • Drew said:
    I served Tetherow’s weekday Mass daily for about two years.  Kneeling directly behind him to elevate his chasuble at the consecration, I never once, not once, heard him pronounce the words of consecration during Mass.  I could hear nothing.  I have discussed this with other priests and they have told me that the form of the sacrament is to be said in a low voice, not an inaudible voice, for if the voice is inaudible there is no sensible form that is necessary for a valid sacrament.  It is no longer an “outward sign.”  I don’t believe that he consecrated the sacrament.  His abuse of the confessional was just as bad.  He routinely pried into areas of the conscience of penitents that were none of his business and have nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament.  He frequently told penitents confidential information, often lies, which he then bound to secrecy.  

    To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

    What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.  

    Tetherow habitually employs a Bela Lugosi “Look into my eyes” routine when he wants to impress his truthfulness on anyone.  He has tried it on me and my wife.  I found it weird and told him to knock it off.  My wife found it disturbing.  

    Maybe the question to ask Fr. Pfeiffer is, “Have you been exorcised by Tetherow?”
    [/quote]

    Drew you nailed it.

    I didn't know Tetherow had done all this.

    This is a demonic possession case.
    I don't believe he was operating alone, but rather, a satanic coven is behind him.
    Besides Boston, KY, there's been a satanic infiltration at the trad chaples in Australia too.

    Paul Hernandez has also been known to prey on women, trying to separate them from their spouses.

    One of his ex-helper lady friends from the Phoenix area escaped and was hiding from him.
    The person in contact with her said she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

    These coven operations are networked. This isn't happening by chance.

    It was providence that Fr. Pfeiffer let it slip that he was "friends" with Tetherow.

    We don't need Pablo/pfeiffers response.




    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #246 on: March 29, 2016, 09:24:02 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree it was providence. I began a Novena to OL of Sorrows March 10th and to St. Joseph for this intention and on the 15th I saw this thread. For me it was Their "go ahead". We have more to add but we're giving someone else a chance to do it, God willing.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #247 on: March 31, 2016, 02:12:45 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

    What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.



    Quote from: Incredulous
    Drew you nailed it.

    I didn't know Tetherow had done all this.

    This is a demonic possession case.
    I don't believe he was operating alone, but rather, a satanic coven is behind him.
    Besides Boston, KY, there's been a satanic infiltration at the trad chaples in Australia too.

    Paul Hernandez has also been known to prey on women, trying to separate them from their spouses.

    One of his ex-helper lady friends from the Phoenix area escaped and was hiding from him.
    The person in contact with her said she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

    These coven operations are networked. This isn't happening by chance.

    It was providence that Fr. Pfeiffer let it slip that he was "friends" with Tetherow.



    Important facts about the three women used by Tetherow to calumniate “his enemies”:


    1-The woman he moved to York (name withheld):


    As soon as Tetherow settled in York in the Summer of 2008, he asked my husband and I if this woman could stay in our home as a guest for a
    couple of months while he found her a place to live. She was older and relied in his counseling. He got a member of the Mission to rent an apartment to her for which he applied for Section 8 in order to accommodate her. Tetherow collected money to rent a trailer to move her from New York and borrowed our Suburban to personally move her to York. Upon arrival, on October 31st, 2008, Tetherow called our home (2 miles away) for help unloading all the boxes. Two more months went by and she was still living in our home. She had not unpacked. In fact, she wanted to go back to NY and Tetherow asked me to help convince her to stay. She met Fr. Arthur de Maio, a priest who helped SSP&P as well as the SSPX in Pittston, PA at a funeral and talked to him in confidence. She told me that Fr. de Maio told her she had leave Tetherow and to go back to NY immediately. Tetherow suddenly surprised her! He came to our home to pick her up and take her to her apartment. He had single-handedly unpacked everything and decorated her home and bought her a new TV set. She was pleased and disobeyed the advice of Fr. de Maio. Never went back. When New Years Eve came, one of the families from SSP&P had a beautiful party for all the members and of course Tetherow. Tetherow declined because he had a “previous engagement”. He spent the evening instead in the apartment and company of this woman.

    From that point I noticed much detraction from Fr. de Maio on the part of Tetherow. Later I found out it was calumny. He has done the same with other priests who knew him and often accused even priests of things we found that he is guilty of.

    The priest who told us about this woman and Tetherow breaking the 6th commandment was not Fr. DeMaio. It was the priest that Tetherow denies ever meeting.



    2- Second woman used by Tetherow:


    This one, a friend of ours for many years, had undergone a “minor exorcism” by Tetherow and developed a psychotic episode lasting several weeks that she attributed to a single dosage of an antibiotic medication. This woman and her family had moved to NH to live near her sister and away from Tetherow. While her husband was gone on business, Tetherow drove to her home in NH and twisted her arm to come back to PA. They were back in about two months or so and she has not spoken to her sister since because of their disagreement about Tetherow.

    At the time Tetherow was dismissed from SSP&P, the two older boys of this family where teenagers and one of them, was particularly pious and "wanted to be a priest". Both of these boys have lost the faith. One is now a heroin addict, three times in and out of rehab. The other is cohabitating with a girlfriend and the next three children in line are now going to Public School.

    It was to this family who our friend Fr. Peterson told that Fr. Tetherow was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before his dismissal. Fr. Peterson told us we had to, "Fire him"(Tetherow) in the presence and home of Anthony and Joyce Paglia in Baltimore, MD.

    As far as I know, this family still supports Tetherow.

    #3 Woman used by Tetherow:
     
    The next woman has seen through Tetherow from the start. She warned us about him a couple of months before the dismissal in 2010 but it was only from her own experiences with him and many, many lies, that Tetherow had been caught in regarding myself and my husband but by this time Tetherow had so turned everyone against us that they couldn’t care less. They all were willing and ready to turn the Mission of SSP&P to the SSPX.

    The day before the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, 2013 this woman called me and told me she was ready (again) to leave Tetherow. I told her all we knew, which was the information we have shared here. The only thing we withheld was the canonical papers because we thought she may go back and did not want Tetherow to know what information we had until the proper time. The woman came to SSP&P Mission for Mass the next day. She arrived early and wanted to tell me “All the calummies she help Tetherow spread to destroy our reputation”. I didn’t want to know (better that way) and told her: “We move on,(name), I don’t need to know”. After taking for about 40 minutes, she told me she could not leave Tetherow without proof to show the people at Tetherow’s chapel because: “What he did to you and David, he will do to me” and she could not risk that. She tried to get information from Fr. Peterson but he would not give it to her because he is very experienced and he knew even his old friends refused to believe him. He reprimanded me for attempting to open people’s eyes in the past. He knew it was useless. He said to me: “Can’t you see that they don’t want to know because their hearts are not pure?! And indeed! This poor woman went back to Tetherow and as far as I know, she is still there.

    I will copy below a letter we received from this woman (name withheld) on 08/2015. She had left Tetherow and sent us this letter at that time. Since then, she has returned to Tetherow. In her letter she blamed “her Hell” on us and Fr. Peterson for being “uncharitable” in not giving her the kind of “proof” that she needed to leave him. This woman received a “minor exorcism” from Tetherow. It was after this “exorcism” that she underwent a radical change in personality doing things objectively against the commandments at his direction that were entirely uncharacteristic of her behavior before.


    PS:SMA= St Michael the Archangel, Tetherow's chapel. The email she speaks about was a reply to an email sent to SSP&P Mission by a friend of Tetherow and only those people he copied the email to, received my husband's reply.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #248 on: April 03, 2016, 03:09:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Recusant Sede
    Food for thought:

    Saint Alphonsus punished Saint Gerard because of false accusations by a woman. When asked to defend himself against the accusations, Saint Gerard remained silent. His silence was taken as consent. There was no court of law and Saint Alphonsus made the assumption that he was guilty of the crime. What else could Saint Alphonsus do? No one came to the defense of Saint Gerard, not even himself.



    This is hardly the case with Mr. Tetherow. He admitted his crime to the local authorities, to the diocese and to Rome in his canonical case. His followers who believe he is “a persecuted priest” would never mud their own names to defend his  in public. They cannot defend him on CathInfo because they know they cannot do it anonymously when those exposing him are doing it openly. When my husband defended him he saw it as a duty to defend an  "innocent" priest. Now, his duty is to warn others.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #249 on: April 06, 2016, 06:54:10 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caraffa
    Fr. Tetherow is a convicted pedophile.

    http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/TETHEROW.htm

    How ironic that the title of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon is "Ecclesiastical Wickedness."


    Since the links are not working, I wanted to post the announcement on the SS Peter and Paul website previously posted by Caraffa for the benefit of some. It has come to my attention that some people have left Mr. Tetherow's chapel including woman #3 mentioned in a previous post.

    Quote from: D.M. Drew

    Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow* published in a Catholic Blog:

    Knights of Divine Mercy (http://www.knightsofdivinemercy.com/2010/12/04/fr-isaacs-contact-information/)

    fr. gabriel tetherow says:  August 13, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    “Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea is now a member of my community the Servants Minor of St. Francis and he is saying mass everyday and will soon be taking over a parish in Philadelphia.”


    It has come to our attention that Tetherow is again passing around an argument offered in his defense which was formally retracted and apologized for many years ago.  Now that Tetherow is reforming his order we offer again a public evaluation of the man’s character.

    I had direct experience dealing with Tetherow over several years.  In fact, I am the only one foolish enough to have defended this man in the public forum with credible arguments, a defense which I have publically apologized for because the arguments were proven to be entirely grounded upon lies, half-truths, and factual distortions provided by Tetherow.  Despite my public apology, Tetherow still passes the defense around.  If Tetherow wants to defend his name in this post or any other internet forum, I welcome the opportunity to confront him with his own record for the purpose of offering a charitable warning to other Catholics.  At any other time in the Church history Tetherow would never be permitted to be involved in pastoral care again.  At best he would be restricted to a monastery for a life of supervised penitence, and at worse, a life in clerical prison if he escaped burning at the stake. Virgil Bradley (Gabriel) Tetherow is a convicted felon on child pornography related charges and a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  The charge of “convicted felon” is a matter of public record.  The charge of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is based upon indirect evidence by his many associations with known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and a convicted ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ child abuser who was his principle advocate whose assistance prevented him from going to prison.
     
    His original group of "Servants Minor of St. Francis" approved by Bishop Timlin in Scranton was suppressed by Bishop Martino within a month after he took over the diocese, not as Tetherow claims because of his traditional Catholicism, but because his order was considered to be a scandalous playhouse by the diocese. Bishop Martino confiscated the assets of the order and Tetherow was made a diocesan cleric and given liberty to go to any parish in the diocese who would take him.

    After the suppression, Tetherow went by his own choice, and not as he claims under obedience to Bishop Martino, to live with his checkered friend Fr. Michael Kloton, who had a reputation for pornography and long history of substance abuse, at the parish of St. Ann in Tobyhanna where Kloton was pastor. The friendship between Tetherow and Kloton before the suppression of his order was established by sworn affidavits by clerical staff at St. Ann parish and proven by photographic evidence.  Tetherow had on previous occasions taken the members of his order to St. Ann to be entertained by Kloton. Before Tetherow had taken up residence at St. Ann, Kloton was already under investigation by the Diocese of Scranton because the clerical employees of the parish had discovered and complained about pornography on the Kloton’s computers at the parish.  They provided evidence to Bishop Timlin who did nothing beyond sending his representatives to pressure the staff into dropping the matter and keeping their mouths shut.  It was the same St. Ann employees who described in a sworn statement that the members of Tetherow's order were notoriously “effeminate.”  It was while Tetherow was living at St. Ann with Kloton that Tetherow downloaded child pornography. Once the child pornography was discovered on Tetherow’s personal computer, the police were called and Kloton pointed the finger at Tetherow as the only possible culprit.

    Tetherow confessed to the police of downloading child pornography. He was arrested and charged with ten counts related to downloading and using child pornography. He plea-bargained guilty to the lesser charge of misuse of a communication facility and was sentenced to two years in Angelus_Fr.Arrested_1.jpgprison which was suspended on the condition that he serve the time at a monastery under the supervision of its one and only monk, Fr. Phillip (Angelus) Ferrara.  The monastery was Our Lady of Solitude Retreat Home in Little Meadows, PA.  Tetherow told everyone that he stayed at the monastery only to help an old and infirm monk with the care of the property and lend personal assistance.  Another lie! Ferrara is two years older than Tetherow and was in good enough health to be walked off the grounds in handcuffs by the police.  Not long after Tetherow completed his sentence, his friend and mentor, Fr. (Angelus) Ferrara, was arrested and charged for the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse of a teenage boy, convicted, and sentenced to prison in Pennsylvania.  Tetherow’s confession to downloading child pornography was also made to the diocese of Scranton and affirmed again in his canonical case sent to Rome to contest his laicization by the diocese of Scranton.  Tetherow now claims that he pled guilty because he could not defend himself without violating the confessional seal.  That is nothing but another big ugly lie which cannot stand the light of close examination.  I leave it to anyone to ask an experienced priest regarding the merits of this claim.  

    It was Tetherow’s friend, Fr. (Angelus) Ferrara, who wrote the letter of recommendation to Rome in support of Tetherow who was trying to canonically contest the process of laicization. Tetherow's canonical argument to Rome, I kid you not, was that he had a long standing addiction to pornography, and, after the suppression of his order, he became depressed and abused alcohol which lead to his indiscrete use of child pornography. His argument continued that since he had obtained clinical medical help and was no longer depressed or abusing alcohol, therefore his addiction to pornography was under control and consequently he was no longer likely to indulge in illegal forms of pornography, and therefore, he should not be laicized.
     
    Tetherow lost his canonical case and was laicized in 2015.  It should be emphasized that he was laicized through a formal canonical process in which he participated with canonical legal representation.  I do not know the competency of his legal representation but even Perry Mason could not have won his case.

    I have personally caught Tetherow telling more lies than I can count or care to remember.   Even now, after more than five years of seeing this man, conversations with others uncover lies that he told.  Most of them are petty lies to puff-up his own image and usually include the demeaning others.  But his lies are habitual and I can throw more than dozen in his face that were witnessed by others that any Catholic would be ashamed to confess only because they are the work of small and petty soul.  If he tells anyone something in “confidence” they had better check the story out directly and at least twice with other sources.

     

    Anyone associated with Tetherow or his reconstituted order had better be aware of his record because they will end up making it their own.  Anyone who would entrust their spiritual direction or the spiritual welfare of their children to this man will have no excuse for any of the consequences that may follow.

     
    A more detailed discussion of Tetherow's character can be found reading the CathInfo Blog posting:

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-mentions-a-Fr-Tetherow-who



    D. M. Drew

    Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
    York, PA

     

     

    *AKA:  Virgil B. Tetherow

               Virgil Bradleigh Tetheaux

                Virgil B. Tetheaux

                Bradleigh V. Tetheaux

                U. B. Tetheaux

                Bradley V. Teetherow

                Bradley V. Tetherow

                V. B. Tetherow

                Bradleigh Tetheaux
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #250 on: April 12, 2016, 09:35:10 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    This discussion brings up a serious question.  When should sound suspicions regarding a cleric be shared with others?  Only after a criminal conviction related to child porn?  With Tetherow there were many signs of serious problems before this criminal indictment that were excused.  Bishop Timlin did nothing about a problem that Bishop Martino addressed within a month of taking over the Diocese of Scranton.  Traditional Catholics were left to their own resources for discovery of any problems.

    Our Mission began with Mass offered one Sunday a month and worked up to every Sunday and Holy Day over several years before having a resident priest.  We engaged different priests to offer a Mass from time to time to fill the schedule so we have had about 15 to 20 priests who have helped us over the years.  We have made an effort to do due diligence examination into their backgrounds but we have made two mistakes.  One was because information was withheld and the other because we were intentionally given false information.  We have also refused two priests who offered to help.  What is common to occur is that Catholics cover up for priests.  There was considerable evidence regarding Tetherow that was withheld by responsible sources that we learned about only after he was discharged.  

    In these posts regarding Tetherow I have tried to only discuss what can be easily proved in the external forum which was enough for the Novus Ordo Church to laicize him after a canonical investigation lasting ten years.  Except for the procedure of administrative laicization that Benedict XVI established in 2008, which can only be used in very restricted cases that must unquestionably meet stringent criteria, a thorough canonical trial is always required to laicize any priest against his will.  Ten years is a long time to consider objective facts before making a judgment.  It clearly is not taken lightly.  All the information that was used in Tetherow’s laicization should have been made available to every Catholic.

    But at the same time, I have a number of personal things I have witnessed and other well grounded suspicions of a deep seated moral corruption that, if true, are far more damnable than what the tribunal considered in making their judgment.  Should this information be shared with everyone?  Perhaps, because, despite the public information on this pervert, he still has a following of Catholics who believe him to be an unjustly persecuted priest.  

    Tetherow is not just your common habitual liar.  Habitual liars (compulsive liars or pathological liars) just lie all the time but the lying is not typically goal directed and it is not typically associated with malice.  Tetherow’s lying is always goal directed even though he is often caught in lies that don’t seem to have any reason behind them, at least any reason that is clearly evident.  A sociopath (psychopath) is a liar who always has a clear purpose for telling lies.  Even though the consequences of lying are not well thought out by a sociopath, he always assumes that he can just tell another lie to avoid any problems.  The sociopath has no shame or regard for the rights of others while the habitual liar often regrets his lies when confronted.  More importantly a habitual liar can be helped by others to recognized and overcome the problem.  A sociopath knows he is a liar but he doesn’t care.  He has no remorse.  With indifference to the consequences of lying, the sociopath cannot be helped.  Once when Tetherow was caught in a public notorious lie he did apologize from the pulpit dripping in tears begging to be forgiven.  The apology was directed at one parishioner who he could not afford to offend.  The apology was just another lie.  A sociopath only repents when he’s caught or sees it as a profitable move.    

    Quote from: Robert D. Hare, PhD
    “Psychopaths (sociopaths) are social predators who charm, manipulate and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations and empty wallets.  Completely lacking in conscience and feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.” Robert D. Hare, PhD


    Quote from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, i.e.: a sociopath or psychopath
    Sociopath (psychopath) is a medical diagnosis called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), lists the diagnostic criteria as:
    The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose Antisocial Personality Disorder, the following criteria must be met:

    1.   Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
    a.   Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
    i.   Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
    ii.   Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of pro-social internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
    AND
    b.   Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
    i.   Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
    ii.   Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
    2.   Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
    a.   Antagonism, characterized by:
    i.   Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.
    ii.   Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
    iii.   Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism.
    iv.   Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
    b.   Disinhibition, characterized by:
    i.   Irresponsibility: Disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises.
    ii.   Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
    iii.   Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self - damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.
    3.   The impairments in personality functioning and the Individual’s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
    4.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
    5.   The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
    6.   The individual is at least age 18 years.

    We have specific examples of Tetherow meeting every one of these positive diagnostic criteria.  

    I have not seen Tetherow in nearly six years but only last week I was told another story of him being caught in lie.  He told a group of Catholics that he had never met a certain priest before at any time.  A sixteen year old girl present quietly told her mother that he was lying.  She knew he was lying because six years ago this coming June this young girl was in the company of my wife when she drove the priest to meet Tetherow.  This priest wanted to meet Tetherow so it was arranged at the rental property of one of Tetherow’s she-women.  He spent most of the afternoon alone with Tetherow.  The mother of the young girl who passed on this story wondered why Tetherow would deny ever meeting this priest.  It seemed to her to be a lie without any reason, thus easier to dismiss.  Well, one very good reason is that this priest told me and my wife shortly after he had spoken in detail with Tetherow that he exercised an unnatural influence upon this woman in question and that ‘Tetherow and this woman had broken the sixth commandment.’   I did not ask him how he came to this conclusion.  When I called Tetherow a habitual liar, I was avoiding the more damming accusation that he is a “sociopath.”  It is easier to forgive a habitual liar than a sociopath.  It was Fr. Casimir Peterson, who just turned 95 years this month but still a priest and canon lawyer of sound mind who has helped our Mission from its beginning, after his investigation said plainly that Tetherow was a “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ” and “con-man.”  A “con-man” is just the everyday language for sociopath (psychopath).

    How does a sociopath function as a priest?  The answer is that I don’t think he can but it’s not uncommon to see.  It is my opinion that there is a much greater incidence of sociopaths among ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs than heterosɛҳuąƖs because both are goal directed at self-satisfaction at the expense of others.  The love of a sociopath is like the love a man has for pizza.  It is a consuming love that destroys the thing loved.  Now, by some estimations, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs make up as much as 50% of the Novus Ordo clergy, it is not be surprising to find sociopaths common among clerics.  Actually, as a profession for personal profit, a sociopathic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can hardly find a better job.  The clerical collar is a very convincing cover for sociopathic behavior.  

    I served Tetherow’s weekday Mass daily for about two years.  Kneeling directly behind him to elevate his chasuble at the consecration, I never once, not once, heard him pronounce the words of consecration during Mass.  I could hear nothing.  I have discussed this with other priests and they have told me that the form of the sacrament is to be said in a low voice, not an inaudible voice, for if the voice is inaudible there is no sensible form that is necessary for a valid sacrament.  It is no longer an “outward sign.”  I don’t believe that he consecrated the sacrament.  His abuse of the confessional was just as bad.  He routinely pried into areas of the conscience of penitents that were none of his business and have nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament.  He frequently told penitents confidential information, often lies, which he then bound to secrecy.  

    To these objective facts there is my suspicion that demonic techniques to gain control over impressionable souls, particularly women, were commonly used by him.  He has three women who willing commit objective sins at his command.  All three of these women have attempted to leave him at one time or another but he has always, at great personal effort, worked to bring them back into his fold.  On two of these women he performed a “minor exorcism” after which they exhibited changes in personality.  The third woman was known by Tetherow before he arrived in York.  He personally moved this woman to York so I am unaware of what may have happened in the past.  One of these women left Tetherow for a brief period and returned, but during the time she had left wrote a letter in which she repented for intentionally damaging our reputation by spreading known lies at the direction of Tetherow.

    What is more disturbing, Tetherow insisted to a priest who had some chronic medical problems that he may be “possessed” and needed to undergo a “minor exorcisism.”  Although the priest refused, against his will an improvised rite was imposed by Tetherow.  This priest later developed a severe psychotic episode lasting several days that required hospitalization which, in retrospect, he blames on something Tetherow did.  He describes the “exorcism” as a hellish experience.  I leave it to others to sift the story for whatever you make of it.  

    Tetherow habitually employs a Bela Lugosi “Look into my eyes” routine when he wants to impress his truthfulness on anyone.  He has tried it on me and my wife.  I found it weird and told him to knock it off.  My wife found it disturbing.  

    Maybe the question to ask Fr. Pfeiffer is, “Have you been exorcised by Tetherow?”

    I was responsible for bringing Tetherow to the York, PA area.  When he was discharged for cause on the advice of Fr. Casimir Peterson, about which Fr. Arthur DeMaio was informed and was in agreement, and legal counsel.  Fr. Peterson told me that I have an obligation to make known the information I had to inform faithful Catholics.  The revelation of the facts alone should be sufficient but still there are traditional Catholics who believe that this convicted felon on child porn charges is an unjustly persecuted holy priest.  This is a serious moral problem for Catholics who are trying to keep the faith and its necessary ecclesiastical traditions outside of normal governing structures that worked in the past and which no longer work even in the Novus Ordo structures.

    In spite of these past problems, I strongly believe that the structure of our Mission in York is the best under these circuмstances in which we practice our faith today.  I would be willing to discuss what and why they are to anyone considering establishing an “independent” chapel.  

    Wishing a blessed Easter to all.  Christ is Risen; Indeed He is Risen.  

    Drew


    For the benefit of the few who have left Mr. Tetherow's chapel recently, I wanted to bring this important post to the front. I'm sorry for the repetition for those who have read it.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Offline Croixalist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1549
    • Reputation: +1157/-363
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #251 on: April 12, 2016, 12:15:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wait, what? Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea is associated with Tetherow? This is getting really weird!
    Fortuna finem habet.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #252 on: April 12, 2016, 01:26:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Croixalist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1549
    • Reputation: +1157/-363
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #253 on: April 12, 2016, 02:07:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
    That is what Mr. Tetherow had posted on a website and when we were told that he was still passing around my husband's old defense, he updated the SSP&P webpage announcement to warn others. Unfortunately. Mr. Tetherow has a lot of followers in this parts and they won't even read anything against him. I'm hoping the woman (#3) who left him will make amends by reporting what she knows.


    But as far as you know, Fr. Relyea was/is working alongside him or was that a lie by Rowofteeth? I'd just like to know if that connection was real or imagined. Thanks!
    Fortuna finem habet.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who?
    « Reply #254 on: April 12, 2016, 03:32:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't know who Father Relyea is. The post by Mr. Tetherow was or is in a webpage for Knights of Divine Mercy. The link on CI is not showing but it is on Saints Peter and Paul Mission website under announcement s and then under TETHEROW. I don't know who the  KDM are. A friend of Mr. Tetherow insists on sending information to our website to show "how well he is doing". That's how we learned about the Tetherow post and all we know.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)