Several members here seem to think that as long as they don't go into details, they're not guilty of detraction, betraying confidences, etc.

You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

There are two possible paths people can take, with regards to any incident

A) people don't need to know about it; I'll stay silent about it
B) people need to know about it; I'll post this information

But then you have some people with a "have your cake and eat it too" technique, where they hint at things, but never go into any details, citing "confidentiality", "I don't need to" or "don't want to commit detraction".

You realize, of course, that by saying things like, "There are violations of the moral law there" it merely gets peoples imaginations fired up. Giving HINTS about impropriety is exactly the same, morally speaking, as giving specifics about impropriety. Like Ladislaus pointed out, there have been incidents where the accuser in question was actually quite scrupulous/wrong/petty and it was just some little thing -- but imagine what people thought when they heard "violations of the moral law"!

If you're going to blow the whistle, come out from under your mom's apron and blow the blasted whistle already! Or if you think all sides would be better served with silence, then be ALL THE WAY SILENT. There are various expressions that apply: "____ or get off the pot", etc.

These people are like 5 year old kids who have a secret, and it's practically bursting them as long as they keep it. So instead of outright telling the secret, they just tell everyone they meet how "they have a secret, but I can't tell you." hoping others will pry it out of them, and then the agony will finally be over.

So let's see if I understand their strange morality -- I can't tell another's sins (=detraction), but saying, "Well, he's not as much of a choir boy as everyone thinks, but that's all I'm going to say about that." is fair game? Get real!

I'm not saying that everything posted about Boston, KY is detraction. Actually, I would say the opposite. It's clearly in the realm of the "common good". There IS no "local" for Fr. Pfeiffer. He of all people does everything on the Internet at large. So right off the bat, any discussion about Fr. Pfeiffer or his group would HAVE to be on the Internet. Even more so than, say, discussion about a traditional Catholic church in Cincinnati, OH. What % of St. Gertrude the Great's parishioners, money, etc. comes from those living in OH? Now ask yourself, how many of Fr. Pfeiffer's parishioners, financial support, etc. comes from those living in Boston, KY? About 1/4 of 1%? That would be about right. His local parish IS the Internet. I think that should be clear to most people.

And it's important for people thinking of moving there, sending their young men there for vocations, etc. know the truth about the operation, whatever that is.

Matthew, if you're trying to smoke me out, forget it.  At the proper time what needs to said will be said.  Maria Angela Grow, We hear you, and pretty much know what you're getting at.  Believe me, if we had friends or acquaintances who were planning to steer a young son, relative or friend in the direction of Boston, KY, we'd try to warn them not to do it.  The SSPX-MC Boston, KY is no place to wish an aspiring young man to go, who thinks he may have a vocation.  Not on your life!

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.

"Showing the seminarians pornography"


Very vague, please clarify.

Who was doing this? a seminarian? a parishoner? Pablo? a Priest?

What was involved, an article with a picture that should be avoided (I've seen plenty of links here of these on Cathinfo), hardcore xxx porn? What exactly?

I'm not minimizing the seriousness of an indecent picture that might appear in an otherwise good article but your vagueness is just a wide open door to all kinds of possibilities that are much more serious.

See, this is why it's only fair to go into details.

Everyone should be able to judge for themselves if the charges are serious enough to avoid that group.

For example, I was browsing for church equipment yesterday (Monday -- not on Sunday! hahaha) and I caught something that made me laugh and shake my head.

This was on eBay. At the bottom of the product's page, there was a notice "We are closed on Sunday and Holy Days. Please do not buy or pay for any of our items on Sunday."

...yeah, because computers need a break from mundane affairs to allow more time to worship God and think about spiritual matters on Sunday.  :rolleyes:

Sad to say, that is not even close to the first time I've seen that kind of scrupulosity from Trads.

For some of them, if you steered the conversation (and their thinking) the right way, I'm sure you could convince them, alongside certain Jєωs, that "making a fire" on Sunday is servile work, and that you can't make your oven do it either. So you would create special ovens with "Sunday mode" where the oven would stay at a very low temperature all day, and you just turn up the heat as needed, but you wouldn't be actually kindling any "fire".

I could have some fun with them, if I wanted to. I would offer that creating more electricity demand than "necessary" -- for example, by running your oven, causes more people to have to work at the power plant, causing a certain % more people to have to miss Mass.

By the way, our oven actually has that "Sabbath Mode", so it's a true story. Some modern-day Jєωs actually are that Pharisaical.

But I bet you could get some Trads to line up right alongside them, when it comes to scrupulosity about their observance of Sunday.

They won't write books on Sunday, browse any kind of e-commerce website, etc. and they're left with "watching old movies" which are objectively full of errors from a Catholic standpoint, even if they are from the "good old days".

I just thought of something else pretty important.

What if I put at the bottom of my eBay page,

"I am a devout Catholic, and I take off on Sunday, but my computer does not. Go ahead and browse/buy all you want on Sunday!"

What would the scrupulous person (above) say about me, if someone asked about my site?

He would probably not recommend my site, but since he probably knows deep down that few people agree with him/he sounds silly/he is silly (take your pick), he would probably give some vague reason, like "He doesn't respect all of God's commandments".

That way he doesn't sound silly, his own extreme views aren't spotlighted, etc.

If I do say so myself, I think I'm onto something here.

In other words, it's not just POSSIBLE that vague accusations could turn out to be nothing, but in 9 cases out of 10 it is PROBABLE that they are!

After all, when you're wrong (and everyone knows it) you can't very well demonize your enemy by pointing out things he's doing that are innocent (according to most people) but wrong (according to you and you alone).

And by being vague, you can disagree with/attack your "enemy" while being "truthful" and letting your hearers make more of it than they should. Kind of like a mental reservation. "He's not here right now" (for you). Most people are not going to assume the "for you" part. Except me. hahaha

It's just one more of those human nature, human psychology things.