Fr. Chazal has ALSO gone public about serious problems in Fr. Pfeiffer's group!
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Chazal-what-went-wrong-with-Fr-Pfeiffer


Here is the original letter from Fr. Voigt, without commercials or breaks.

UPDATE: Here is a link version, so you can download it even if you're reading CathInfo right now as a guest (not logged in). You know, CathInfo accounts are free! You don't HAVE to post just because you sign up for an account...

http://www.cathinfo.com/files/fr-voigt.pdf

I think it's much more coherent this way.

P.S. Parts of this letter have *never* been posted to CathInfo.

Here are the first-hand reports of Fr. Voigt -- enjoy!
(Obviously this is a sad and tragic affair...so I'm obviously being a bit sarcastic or ironic when I say "enjoy".
And in a non-ironic way, I meant that you should "enjoy" an easier way to read this letter, rather than the multi-part version with commentary from Hollingsworth mixed in.)

I'm not supporting Fr. Voigt because I have some personal issues with Pablo -- I don't even know this Pablo in person.


What matters is that various reports from different people that Pablo is a bad man and showed porn to seminarians PLUS Pablo is not even a Catholic so he can't teach the seminarians.

"I cannot accept that a practicing and practical apostate (i.e. Pablo) can be good
for seminarians. Fr. Pfeiffer tells the young men that they need to know evil to
fight it (I believe he is referring to his friend's actions and speech). Then as one
seminarian correctly reasoned: “the seminary ought to bring in prostitutes to
encourage the virtue and vow of chastity.” It makes no sense but try to tell
that to the "boss”. "

This is why I'm fighting against Boston and it was the main reason I joined this forum. If these seminarians get out of Boston, KY instructed by Pablo, how many souls they will harm? how much misinformation they will teach the Catholic people?

Nothing is more important than a seminary free from every evil, every little piece of darkness must be expelled. Because there were bad people talking care of the serminaries that Roncallis and Montinis  started to destroy the Church

I'm not supporting Fr. Voigt because I have some personal issues with Pablo -- I don't even know this Pablo in person.

This statement is confusing. What do you mean you do not support Fr. Voigt? He is vociferously condemning the actions of Pablo, and calling on Fr. Pfeiffer to remove himself from any association with him--including having him at the seminary.

How truly sad it is to read such a damning letter.  
Father Voigt is a very mild mannered gentleman, and I would think that it took a great deal of anguish to generate the need for him to write it.

Quote from: J.Paul

How truly sad it is to read such a damning letter.  
Father Voigt is a very mild mannered gentleman, and I would think that it took a great deal of anguish to generate the need for him to write it.

You're right -- I've worked with him in person a lot, and he is very mild mannered.

You certainly can't dismiss him as another "hater" or "bad guy" against Boston, KY and/or Fr. Pfeiffer. He worked with them! He said Mass for them all over the country! He donated large sums to the cause!

Of that there is no question , as there is no question that he has been completely truthful and has been done a great injustice.

Fr. Voigt implies that Fr. Hewko vetted this letter, or at least provided corrections. But I have never heard it addressed in any of Fr. Hewko's sermons,  most of which are online. So either Fr Voigt is inaccurate or Fr. Hewko is not not standing up to see justice served. If Fr. Voigt was indeed treated badly, how can Fr. Hewko just let it go? He is ever the mouthpiece for truth, regardless of consequence, so his silence here is deafening.

Minor: Fr. Hewko didn't address the injustices to Fr. Voigt.
Major: But Fr. Hewko is a saint and doesn't sin.
Conclusion: Therefore Fr. Voigt must be lying about this injustice.

I dispute your "Major" premise, that Fr. Hewko is to be trusted above all others. He is known to be up to his neck involved in the disastrous pseudo-Trad cult headquartered in Boston, KY. He likes Pablo and defends him. And he has actively worked to deceive THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD about Mr. Ambrose Moran. His hands are not clean.

He might have been an excellent, holy priest in the past, but these recent things cannot be overlooked. We are not "saved once, saved always" like the protestants. Even the great can fall, sad to say.

Looking at all the evidence (including witnesses for all sides) I'd have to say that Fr. Voigt has proven himself to be trustworthy here. He has made large donations to the cause, and if he has been kicked out/left, there must be some serious problem(s). I see no reason to distrust Fr. Voigt. Much of Fr. Voigt's testimony has the confirmation of many independent witnesses.

Fr. Hewko, on the other hand, his holiness is mostly a thing of the past -- he's coasting off his former reputation built over many years. He's drawing on good will people developed for him years ago. But recently, all the evidence points to him towing the "party line" of his bosses, Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo -- right or wrong.

His dedication to the truth has certainly taken a huge hit sometime in the past couple years. He needs our prayers.

Have I missed something here? Have Boston, KY or the wrecusant ever answered or addressed any of the points in Fr Voigt's open letter? Martin Dougherty, who has a wonderful Irish name but goes by a Mexican name for some bizarre reason on here, is currently on his high horse and wants to sort things out in Boston KY. If that is so, then perhaps you could go through Fr Voigt's letter point by point with the two priests in Boston and get some answers. That is a nice little project for you to start the new year with.

You assume that I am using a Mexican name for a bizarre reason?

My last name is Irish, but I am also Mexican as well, from my mother's side. It isn't a bizarre reason, not by a long shot.

If you really want to know, you should ask first. That goes for every situation.

It's not a high horse when one is calling for less rumor mongering, and more charity for all. It is not a high hirse to correct a falsehood.

I made it a point not to write about Father Voigt's letter, because any such analysis could have a negative impact on everyone involved, and would only fuel the rumor mongering that I despise so much. It seems that some people are interested only in destroying the reputations of others, friends or enemies.

Martin,

From what you have just replied you have shown that you are not interested in the truth at all. Surely you would want the priests in Boston to clear up the points raised by Fr Voigt in his letter unless you are saying that his letter is all lies. If it is not all lies then surely you can be the mouthpiece for the priests, ask them for their response and then publish that. You keep saying that we should ask first, well I am asking you to clear up this matter once and for all. You talk about a negative impact and rumor mongering but if you are telling the truth then what harm can be done?

I refuse to answer the letter because it should be a matter for the priests, not the faithful. I have written about one incident in the letter, and that is all I will do. I am only interested in the truth, but I will not analyze the letter any more. It is the priests who should handle this, and among themselves.

There is nothing bizarre about that.