Hi Ladislaus-

If you re-read your posts, you will see they are the textbook definition of rash judgment: To hold a firm conviction regarding the evil of another without good evidence.

That is precisely what you are doing when you start from the premise that it is a mortal sin to bring children within 300 miles of someone, based on:

1) he was in Pennsylvania

2) he has the poor judgment to team up with Fr Pfeiffer

I believe you are sufficiently intelligent to understand this, and consequently can only conclude that your passions are overcoming your intellect.

I can’t imagine any priest of whatever persuasion telling you anything different.

If I had children, I would not take them to OLMC to Mass.  I don’t need legal proof or to have literally witnessed abuse.  This isn’t calumny, it’s exercising prudence and doing my duty to protect my children.  
I hope none of what is suspected turns out to be true. Even if Fr. Poisson is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, there are other serious reasons to stay away from Boston.

When this story first broke, I thought to myself, “How and why does an FSSP priest end up in Boston, unless there is something we are missing?”

(It’s ok to consider the possibility without evidence, so long as you don’t form a firm conviction imputing evil to another without it)

That's all I have been doing here.

And if one does not want to become independent, then +BW is no option.
With 5 years to consider his options, he still chose poorly, but it was not a sudden and inexplicable flight from the FSSP.

Oh please. The priests allied with +W work together as a group just fine. I know, +W originally called for "a loose network of independent priests" but as a matter of fact there is quite a helpful cooperation between the priests working with the 4 Resistance bishops. Don't sell them short.

And #2) Fr. Pfeiffer HARDLY is a great example of a great structure, organization, or anything like that. Such a reason falls flat on its face.
After all these years Father has just 1 priest (Fr Hewko) and maybe a few priests who haven't made it to Fr. P's "crap list" yet -- but for the most part they have their own private apostolates. As far as day-to-day Boston and Mission apostolate is concerned, it's still just good old Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko. Oh, and a small but increasing list of priests with troubled reputations and backgrounds...

PS. #$@#$  I hit modify instead of quote. I do that more often than I like. Sorry. Again, #$!#  
I can't bring it back or I would.

Not to change the subject, but "poisson" means "fish" in French.

There's no rash judgement here.  No one has said that Fr. Poisson is in fact a pedophile.  But the facts make him suspect.  There's a clear distiction there even recognized in Canon Law.  Certain external actions can render someone suspect of heresy for instance.  Was the Church making a rash judgment in labeling Roncalli suspect of Modernism?  Church did not say he was a Modernist, just that he was suspect of it.  Even if it had turned out that he really wasn't, the judgment that he said and did things that made him suspect was neither rash nor wrong.  If I see someone talking and acting like a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, then that makes him objectively suspect and the suspicion is not rash ... even if it turned out to be wrong.  Would I be wrong to turn him down if he offered to take my young son camping?  In fact, I would commit a grave sin by letting him do so.

You should lock this thread. The original by X is sufficient discussion of this priest at this point. No need to continue speculating about possible moral problems when it's obvious enough that anyone who allowed the fraud Moran to "ordain" them either has a serious shortage of intellect or is running away from something.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/invalid-orders-in-boston-ky/

FSSP ordains in the Traditional rite.
Why would Fr. Pfeiffer reordain him at all?

I know the FSSP are ordained by NO bishops: in the Traditional Rite.

I guess you're suggesting the Traditional Rite is not a valid ordination when performed by a NO bishop?

I do not subscribe to that point of view.