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.
“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
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
Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer mentions a Fr. Tetherow - who? (Read 126472 times)