CathInfo.com

They also say he spent 5 years on his parents farm.

Well, this is one plausible reason for his move ... a prior Pfeiffer connection.

The Pfeiffer forum is making accusations of calumny for what is being said of Fr Poisson, and I can’t see how anyone can reasonably argue against the charge:

Speculation and rash judgment regarding his moral character is all I see in this thread.

Would it really have been so hard to wait for the grand jury report, which is soon to be made public?

For my own part, I am only voicing my concerns regarding the report of an extremely dubious conditional ordination by Mr. Ambrose Moran.

The moral discussion should have waited until the report was made public (unless there is some other concrete and credible evidence to support the accusations being made against this priest).

When and if that should transpire, I will hop on the bandwagon, but not before.

To make such accusations without any evidence better than “he was in PA” and “since Pfeiffer has expressed willingness to associate with those accused and/or convicted of grave moral offenses, it must be true in the present case too” is itself surely gravely rash matter.

And for the record, I am neither Smedley, Fanny, nor any of the other names mentioned on the Pfeiffer forum.

They have a point about the premature accusations constituting calumny, possible slander, and the textbook definition of rash judgment.

They have a point about the premature accusations constituting calumny, possible slander, and the textbook definition of rash judgment.

bovine excrement.  I love how people toss around the word calumny without having any understanding of the term.

If I run into a limp-wristed man who's lisping and shows other characteristics of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, I am able to state as fact -- no calumny -- this man exhibits a lot of behaviors and characteristics typical of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and out of caution I will keep my children away from him.  And I might warn others who might have a little less-well-tuned "gαydar" to do the same.  That is NOT calumny.  No one is saying that he's certainly a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ ... just that the circuмstantial evidence suggests that he may very well be.  Former statement would be calumny, but the latter is merely objective fact.

Similarly, there's circuмstantial evidence with regard to both Poissson and the Pfeiffer compound in general that would suggest that there's a great possibility that some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network has set up operations there and that people should stay away and, most importantly, keep their children away.