CathInfo.com

So I've read up on the several priests in questions and the pattern seems pretty obvious with those pedo priests.  So a few questions here.

1) Is Fr. Pfeiffer trying to stand by fellow priests and rehabilitate?  (naïve but non-malicious)
2) Is he drawing from the bottom of the barrel because he has no one else to further his version of tradition?
3) Am i understanding correctly Fr. Pfeiffer truly doesn't believe the accusations, the court docs, conviction/laicized because he views it as an attack on tradition?
4) SSJ were a group of repeat offending pedos trying to hide each other.  It begs the questions why would Fr. Pfeiffer stake the reputation of Boston on supporting repeat sex offenders?
5) Out of curiosity, what was done 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago when pedophilia reared its vile head?  Were they transferred and taken in by some other order?  While this isn't pleasant topic, it can't be unprecedented in the history of the Church.
6) Fr. Hewko is far worse in all this than Fr. Pfeiffer in my opinion.  He desired to be a martyr like the Christeros so bad, he martyred himself with his exit speech.  He has tied his rope to Fr. Pfeiffer like a sycophant.  You can't tell me that he was brave enough to leave the SSPX the way that he did, but he can't leave an even worse situation involving pedos.   Fr. Hewko always gathered boys wherever he went, and tried to make men out of them.  Is he still gathering sheep, while the other priest protects the wolves and pen them together? ...he is complicit. There is no room for pedophilia in Catholicism.

Good for you to have taken the initiative.  I hope you did your research on an empty stomach.

You will have to address your questions to fr. Pfeiffer himself for his answers.  

In lieu of that, I can give it a shot:
1. No.  He stands by no priest/bishop/monk  who is "against him", rehabilitatable or not.
2. Yes.
3. I don't know if he views it as an attack on tradition, but he believes unless convicted in a court of law they are innocent.
4. The end justifies the means.
5. I don't know.  I was recently told that st. Pius X said such priests should be put to death.
6. Fr. Hewko is not complicit.  He wrote a public letter explaining his support of fr. Roberts.  Fr. Hewko has either been in a barrel with bad apples too long or he has been cursed.

You are right, there is absolutely no room for even an accusation of pedophilia in Catholicism, even as Christ Himself said so: Better for a millstone to be tied around his neck and thrown into the deepest part of the sea than for someone to scandalize even one of My little ones.

It seems to be, but I am no saint, that the death penalty would actually be more charitable for such people than to let them continue hurting children.  Better that a millstone be tied around his neck and flung into the deepest part of the sea...

Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life.  Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.

Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life.  Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.

St. Peter Damian said something to this effect back in the XI century when he was warning the Church of the dangers of the vice of sodomy which "cannot in any way be compared to any others, because its enormity supersedes them all. Indeed, this vice causes the death of bodies and the destruction of souls. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of reason, and expels the Holy Ghost from His temple in the heart of man, introducing in His stead the Devil who is the instigator of lust". 

“Thus, as soon as someone has fallen into this abyss of extreme perdition, he is exiled from the heavenly motherland, separated from the Body of Christ, censured by the authority of the whole Church, condemned by the judgment of all the Holy Fathers, despised by men on earth and rebuked by the society of heavenly citizens. He creates for himself an earth of iron and a sky of bronze.

 "On the one hand, laden with the weight of his crime, he is unable to rise; on the other hand, he is no longer able to conceal his evil in the refuge of ignorance. He cannot be happy while he lives nor have hope when he dies, because here and now he is obliged to suffer the ignominy of men’s derision and, later, the torment of eternal condemnation."