CathInfo.com

There are some seriously scrupulous trads out there.  I'm so glad to not be a trad.  Just a faithful Catholic.

I agree with your post, except for this part.

I have to point out that being a faithful Catholic right now involves being a so-called "Traditional Catholic". Yes, there are countless problems with many Trads nationwide. As the owner of CathInfo since 2006 and a life-long Trad, few are more aware of all the things that can go wrong in the Trad world than I am. I've seen it all. But not a single one of those problems is inherent to the movement, or can be blamed on the movement.

See, we can blame the Novus Ordo for young men leaving the Church, for people not learning their faith, because those things are not accidental, but come from the very formation, tendencies, and philosophy of the Novus Ordo.

But when a Trad becomes a home aloner, or is uncharitable, mean, becomes a bully, commits various public sins, etc. it has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith (which, by the way, is eminently Traditional). Maybe he REJECTED too much of his priest's advice, became too worldly, married a non-Catholic, didn't pray enough, etc. and that is the source of his problems.

I  have a great weight of guilt for having directed many people to the seminary in Boston as well as retreats, etc.

Such improper things include:

Giving the seminarians meat on Fridays.

If you're R&R, then technically the strict obligation to not eat meat on Fridays has ceased to bind.  In addition, Confessors / Spiritual Directors have always been at liberty to dispense with the obligation to eat meat on Friday for various just / proportionate causes.  We don't know why this may have been done.

Making the seminarians do unnecessary manual labor on Sunday.

Unnecessary is a subjective term that can mean many things to many people.

Showing the seminarians pornography, as attested by a seminarian who left and is going to join Avrille.

Define "pornography".  One person's pornography might be another person's art.  And this is coming from a person who considers the vast majority of nude Renaissance art to be completely inappropriate.  So is it more along those lines, or are they passing around Playboy magazine?  There was a seminarian at Winona who showed a movie which briefly showed a woman topless.  While I would consider that highly inappropriate and scandalous, I wouldn't necessary put that in the category of pornography.

Interrupting the prayer time of people who were there to do things which could have been done at other times.

That's outright rude and inconsiderate, but not necessarily a grave problem.

Neglect of Divine Office when it was time to pray it. An obligation for priests, but Fr Pfeiffer blew it off when he was busy with mundane matters. Two people I trust have attested to the neglect of prayer life at the seminary for "doing". This has never been reported of Fr Hewko. Only Fr Pfeiffer sometimes and Pablo often interrupting prayer time with a trivial task.

Again, there's some subjectivity here.  Sometimes one might be dispensed from the Divine Office for good reason.  One person's "mundane matters" might be considered necessary for the good of souls by another.

Leaving the seminarians alone, mostly with Pablo only for direction when the priests were off saying Masses various places. I am not saying, in this crisis, that leaving them with a holy, responsible lay person would be wrong, but if Pablo is not practicing the Faith, it does not seem he should be the main person to direct seminarians in the absence of the priests. This happened less when Fr Voigt was there, but now that he is gone, Pablo directs everything while the priests are gone.

That's not uncommon due to the current crisis.  Even at Winona, on the weekends, sometimes you had either just one priest left behind (or even none for brief periods) since they were all out on the Mass circuit.  But, no, Pablo should not be in charge of anything.

Women and children having free run in the seminary when the priests were gone.

When a seminary doubles as a Mass center, that sometimes happens a little bit, perhaps more than it should.  But it happened at Winona a little bit also.

Having Mass only two or three times a week when the fathers are all gone on trips. This is not a violation of moral law, but not the best way to conduct a seminary to form holy priests.

Not ideal, but again, sometimes unavoidable.

I have said what I have said because of a desire to keep people from being entangled in this situation. We were on the verge of moving to Boston, and had not people been kind enough to warn me, we would have been there, highly dependent on Pablo for transportation, which would have meant being under his control.

While I qualified some of the things you said above, these would all certainly be reasons why one might not want to receive "formation" in that environment.

Since I  previously have constantly recommended this seminary and institution, I feel a great burden for misleading people, even if in ignorance. One young man from Texas whom I have been encouraging to go there for over a year is determined to go, even when I retracted my support. I am not the only reason he is going there, but when he was in times of doubt, I encouraged him to continue to prepare to go there. Now I feel partly responsible for whatever happens to him spiritually when he is there. I had told him if he was ever in trouble there call me because I am only 2 and 1/2 hours away, much closer than TX. But with the new rules in effect, the seminarians are cut off, and he would have no way to contact me. So this is to repair the wrong I have done in recommending Boston, not to spread gossip.

Don't beat yourself up.  You did the best you could with the information you had.  If he ends up going there, then God will have allowed it ... for whatever reasons.

I am in a difficult position, because some of this was told me in confidence and some not. But if I am silent, I am complicit in the harm they may do. Otherwise, I would not be saying this. Normally, I keep what is told to me in confidence inviolate. But the hurt that was done to my friend there puts me in a position that I must warn of danger. This is not light gossip, but a soul wrenching situation for me. I am in deep grief for Boston, but aware that my endorsements must be withdrawn.

If there are solid reasons to reveal things said in "confidence" that's for the public good, then confidences can be broken (provided we're not talking about detraction, calumny, or something that would at least indirectly violate the seal of Confession).

So the overall impression one gets is that the place appears to be dysfunctional.  More than any of these things, I would avoid Boston due to 1) the dubious Ambrose celebrating doubtful Sacraments there, 2) the borderline-schismatic red-lightism demanded by Father Pfeiffer, 3) total lack of confidence in Father Pfeiffer's judgment due to #1 and #2 above, 4) the cult-like mentality evidenced by many in the Boston compound, and 5) the disturbing presence of one nameless Meshicano.