Let’s continue to support a testimony that:
1. Cannot specify what month or even what year the story took place...
2. Could not verify the restaurant or even the city of the restaurant.
3. Could not remember what carpet, in what building, was “burned” by a cigar.
But ...
The writer CAN remember the precise “witchcraft” formulas in exact detail after having glanced at the book for a few moments, and can recall the dialogue between Pablo and the chef at the restaurant, which supposedly took place in the kitchen of the restaurant they could not recall or locate on a map, while the writer was at the table with father.


Wow.

Do I need to list out the points again from Catholicus' story that have been independently verified by other posters?  I've done this several times already, but you keep ignoring it.

Depending on how long ago this took place, many of these details could be forgotten.  Are you going to dispute Seraphina's story if she can't remember the color of the infamous bathrobe?

You're a complete shill and have discredited yourself.

FACT:  [corroborated by none other than yourself]  Pablo rarely attends Mass, and on the rare occasion he does it's not to actively participate but to make connections.

FACT:  [corroborated] OLMC personnel were telling people to stop wearing St. Benedict's medals.

FACT:  [corroborated] Pablo asks for pictures of people and their families to "pray for them".

FACT:  [corroborated] People who run afoul of Pablo receive menacing phone calls (often in Spanish) from various different localities.

Those are all elements of Catholicus' story that have since been corroborated on this thread, giving her(?) a significant amount of credibility.

Only the soup incident, cigar incident, and appearance of the knife remain unconfirmed.  While these incidents are certainly subject to interpretation, I do not believe Catholicus made them up.  She could have come up with much more juicy stories if she were intent on fabricating something.

Add to these corroborated facts:

FACT:  Pablo dabbled with doing exorcisms without requisite authority, and exorcists say that it's very dangerous and opens people up to being taken over by those forces.

FACT:  Pablo had the nickname "El Brujo" and "El Diablo".

FACT:  Pablo stated that Father Voigt had placed a "curse" on his son to cause his death, showing that Pablo is very conversant with things like curses.

FACT:  Fathers Pfeiffer and Father Hewko have been acting in extraordinarily irrational ways ... without any obvious natural explanation.

So all the pieces, even without the soup incident and the burning cigar -- all are STRONG WARNING SIGNS that Pablo is mobilizing occult forces against the people at OLMC.

And then add Seraphina's extremely convincing narrative ... especially the part about how Pablo fakes blessings.

Sounds reasonable to me. But it can be difficult to admit that one has been very wrong, and to apologize for it.

That's very true. Until his rhetoric changes from "you don't know me" and "you can't make me" to "I should have listened to the alarm and acted sooner" and replaces his habit of deflection into complete transparency, then he might have turned the corner. Right now all we have are anonymous accounts where we could really benefit from a name attached to them. Martin could still be that guy, but he's already used the excuse that he wouldn't want anything tainted on these horrible horrible forums that he is compelled to post on. He will put out personal details for what remains of Pablo's reputation, which speaks volumes as to how far he hasn't come. Admitting to mere flaws or unspecific mistakes won't do it in the confessional and surprise surprise, doesn't go very far here.

With each and every absurd post (see my previous lengthy post explaining how Catholicus' story has largely been corroborated, while your gratuitous denials are not credible and lose more and more credibility with each post) ... you become more and more complicit in Pablo's crimes.

It's completely absurd this has to be explained, but here we are yet again!

Each testimony is separate and unique. A valid and detailed testimony should not be used to validate a lie. It diminishes the value of the true testimony.
Seraphina’s testimony is clear in all its details. It is level-headed and fair. It has time, setting, and people. It can be easily verified.
Catholicus can’t do any of that, and when asked, the writer refused.

Indeed, but read again how much of Catholicus' story has in fact been verified.  You keep ignoring that.  Ignore if you will the parts that have not been verified, the soup incident, etc.  But EVEN IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, the case against Pablo is damning.  Then combined the corroborated parts of Catholicus' story with Seraphina's account, and a picture emerges.

You believe Seraphina, and didn't ask her details to verify her story.  Why?  You tipped your hand when you dismissed occult practices as "mumbo jumbo".  Seraphina's you find credible, whereas Catholicus' do not ... both for no reasons other than your emotions.  Why didn't you grill Seraphina about the color of the bath robe, details about exactly when the fake blessing incident took place, etc.?

Catholicus’ testimony, and the rabid defense of it, reminds me a lot of the case of “Bishop” Ambrose, with some posters of CathInfo filling in for the supporters of Ambrose (with myself in the initial stages, I am sorry to say).
But of course, this story is against Pablo, so it gets a pass. Pablo is a bad guy, so even if this story is absolutely falsified, we can still use it to highlight the evils of Pablo and Boston.
I am not defending Pablo or the seminary.
CathInfo, for better or worse, is the largest site for the resistance. It has some pull in the field. As such, there ought to be a certain accountability when it comes to making accusations, and there should be room for questioning those accusations, as well as asking for proof of those accusations.
Otherwise, you are only discrediting CathInfo while giving Boston more ammunition for their worldwide machinations.

Imagine the hypocrisy of demanding accountability while assuming none of it yourself. You refuse to realize your weak admissions of weakness don't begin to cover your involvement in all this. The best thing anyone can do here to elevate their claims is to release their full names and move forward with all allegations. You could be the first since Fr. Voigt to do that, you could have been an example. You reluctance to share your full testimony could mean any number of things but it certainly doesn't inspire anyone else who might have something important to say from officially standing by their account. I'll tell you what I think it looks like, it looks like everyone is in fear of reprisals from you-know-who.

Indeed, but read again how much of Catholicus' story has in fact been verified.  You keep ignoring that.  Ignore if you will the parts that have not been verified, the soup incident, etc.  But EVEN IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, the case against Pablo is damning.  Then combined the corroborated parts of Catholicus' story with Seraphina's account, and a picture emerges.

You believe Seraphina, and didn't ask her details to verify her story.  Why?  You tipped your hand when you dismissed occult practices as "mumbo jumbo".  Seraphina's you find credible, whereas Catholicus' do not ... both for no reasons other than your emotions.  Why didn't you grill Seraphina about the color of the bath robe, details about exactly when the fake blessing incident took place, etc.?

Seraphina’s testimony answered all the questions before I had to ask them. 

Let's also not forget how impossible it would be for Pablo to put anything up on his wall when Manuel wasn't around. As we all know Pablo tightly controlled access for everyone except Mudskipper Chavez.