We’ve already written about a couple of matters concerning money, i.e.Fr. Voigt’s money,  and the seminary at Boston, KY.   We are now well acquainted with Father’s largess in this regard.  Yet that fact never prevented accusations of theft against Father by both Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo.  In his “open letter,” Father V. writes:

“On another note let us consider the question of money which so occupies your (Fr. P’s) mind.  The claim is made by yourself and Pablo that I have stolen from you by not giving over the collections which were taken at the Masses which I offered.
You have never given me any other guidelines than that which is made out to the seminary goes to the seminary.  All cash and checks made out to me are meant for my account.  For the last 14 months I have paid my way and never asked for any reimbursement.  Every check designated for you or the seminary went to you.  Instead I have been more than generous with the seminary and you for that matter and even for Pablo. ..”

I don’t think any knowledgeable person can argue that Fr. Voigt did not pay his way.  He not only paid his way, but helped out the seminary in many other ways financially, during that 14 month period.

I enquired yesterday (Oct. 4, 2015) by email about a sum of $10,000 which he donated, (not loaned) to Fr. Pfeiffer and the OLMC.  This sum is mentioned in his “open letter,” and I reprint that segment below.  But first, let me quote from Father’s email answer the same day.  It will help our understanding.  You see, the seminary building was in much need of repair, especially the roof.  The need had already been duly acknowledged, and a couple of the men there with building experience intended to do something about it.  Father V writes:

Oct. 4, 2015 email from Fr. V:
I told Father (Pfeiffer) that I would offer a check of $10,000 to be used for improvements in the seminary structure.  I was teaching at St. James Academy (in Louisville, KY) and was receiving monthly checks for the service.  I would only visit the community at times and had no knowledge of how things were going.  Fr. Pfeiffer sent Pablo and Fr. Chazal up to Louisville to pick up my donation. I never received any acknowledgement, nor any information on how the funds were used.

Yes, that’s right.  Father has not heard to this day how that $10,000 donation was used.  Yet he had the right to know under the reporting provisions of a 501c3 tax exempt organization.  Donors have a right to know how their donations to a non-profit have been used.

Father mentions that $10,000 gift in his “open letter:”

“…., on December 12, 2013 I gave you (Fr. Pfeiffer) a check for $10,000 for the specific need of replacing the seminarian's roof.  You continue to say that you want to expand the structure and so the roof remains a mess.  If you are not going to use the funds (if they are still there), then return them to the donor who designated them for a specific purpose.”

That $10,000 dollars apparently disappeared down a rabbit hole.  We’ll probably never learn what really happened with them.  

I made recent inquiries of a person in Boston, Ky well acquainted with the seminary compound.  To this person’s knowledge there is no visual evidence that any structural improvement has been made.  It is still a “mess” to this very day.

   
 

The problem seems to be, at least in part, that the accounting procedures within the OLMC non-profit organization, if they even exist, are so shabbily carried out, and carelessly attended to, that one can never be sure where money has come from, where it is going, or for what specific projects it has been targeted.  This is the overall impression I have received, subject, of course, to correction and amendment.

Quote from: hollingsworth

The problem seems to be, at least in part, that the accounting procedures within the OLMC non-profit organization, if they even exist, are so shabbily carried out, and carelessly attended to, that one can never be sure where money has come from, where it is going, or for what specific projects it has been targeted.  This is the overall impression I have received, subject, of course, to correction and amendment.

This isn't surprising in and of itself as even the SSPX doesn't follow proper non-profit accounting practices, but you don't have to do these things perfectly in order to do them well. One basic is that you DO need to keep records of donations so that you can supply tax receipts to those who wish to have them. Another basic is that when you receive a large donation for a specific purpose, you go ahead and accomplish that task as soon as possible before you lose track of what you were supposed to do with that money. Now, it's hard for the purpose of a $10,000 donation to "slip your mind" especially when your organization only consists of 2-4 people, so there's really no excuse for not having used the money as intended or at least still have it available.

When MaterDominici gives her input on something accounting-related, y'all take heed, as she's an authority on the subject.
She completed a 5 year Accounting degree (in 4 years) and is a former licensed CPA. She only gave it up to raise a family.


http://www.cpaexam.com/how-to-become-a-cpa/

The CPA exam is rigorous and demanding, and requires a CPA exam review course to increase your chances of passing. Plus, there are additional requirements you’ll need to meet before you sit for the exam in 2015. Regulations vary by state, but most require 150 semester hours of instruction – which is 30 hours beyond the typical four-year bachelor’s degree. In addition, some states will require a minimum number of semester hours of accounting instruction, and a minimum number of hours of business instruction. For example, certain states require 30 hours of accounting and 25 hours of business, while others require 35 hours of accounting, but have no minimum for business instruction. Be sure to check the CPA Exam requirements for the jurisdiction in which you’ll be taking the CPA exam.

Many CPAs hold bachelor’s degrees in accounting; others earn business degrees, and then go on to an MBA with a concentration in accounting program. Some colleges offer accelerated master’s degree programs for working professionals. Many students opt to complete the 150-hour requirement while pursuing their bachelor’s degrees, while an accelerated five-year accounting program works best for others.

MD:

Now, it's hard for the purpose of a $10,000 donation to "slip your mind" especially when your organization only consists of 2-4 people, so there's really no excuse for not having used the money as intended or at least still have it available.

Exactly!  And that's the point to keep in mind.  A check for 10,000 big ones was written to the order of 'Fr. P. & Co.', (or whatever account name appeared on the check).  Fr. P sent Fr. Chazal and Pablo scurrying off to Louisville in order to pick it up.  A cancelled check, or the nowadays electronically transferred equivalent of it showed up a while later in Father V.'s statement.  So, the check was written and delivered.  The prize was claimed.  It was cashed or deposited.  Thereafter, 'Alice' took the proceeds and vanished through the 'looking glass.'  They haven't been seen since.  The roof is still a "mess."

Original message: I made recent inquiries of a person in Boston, Ky well acquainted with the seminary compound.  To this person’s knowledge there is no visual evidence that any structural improvement has been made.  It is still a “mess” to this very day.

My Response: I am well acquainted with the grounds. This claim is incorrect. There have been many alterations made to the seminary since July 2013. Many of these improvements have been aided by Pablo himself.

Some notable improvements include (but are not limited to):

- Seminary kitchen remodel: New cabinets and tops, stove/ oven combo, microwave, stand-alone freezer, fridge, storage for the kitchen; drywall replacement and mold removal

- Seminary bathroom remodel

- House near Church: interior remodeled entirely

- New office space installed near priest house

- New blacktop

- other repairs throughout the property

These are just a few changes I can recall off the top of my head. These repairs weren't cheap, but they were done.

But not the roof, for which the money was donated. And do remember that this was from their brother priest who was working with those to whom he directly transferred the money.

The more that you defend this enterprise, the worse it looks for the participants.

I told Father (Pfeiffer) that I would offer a check of $10,000 to be used for improvements in the seminary structure.

And …

“on December 12, 2013 I gave you (Fr. Pfeiffer) a check for $10,000 for the specific need of replacing the seminarian's roof.

My response: There is an inconsistency here with the statements provided. While the latter specifically states that the money was for the roof, the former can be applied to the seminary in general, not just the roof.

There is no inconsistency, the first being a statement of the general purpose of the gift, the second being the specific purpose, which is perfectly consistent with the first. You are operating on the presumption that Father is dissembling. It is quite apparent that he is not.

Playing with words will not save the sect from its broken promises and mismanagement of funds.  You make them look more guilty with every such word.

ManuelChavez:

I am not condemning either party, and neither should anyone else, for no one here has the full story, or even half the story.

I think we have to decide who has at least "half the story," Manuel Chavez" or Fr. Richard Voigt.  There is no question in my mind that MC knows far less of the real story than Fr. Voight.

A couple of you have stated that you can take my word for it.  OK, I'll just pass along another bit of intelligence which I've gotten recently from two impeccable sources, at least I consider them to be.  These two individuals, well acquainted with the situation on the ground in Boston, KY, tell me that Martin Chavez's real name is Martin Doherty, that he is, or was, a seminary student at OLMC.

Have I got it right, Manuel Chavez?  Is your name really Martin Doherty?  Were you, or are you,  in Fr. Pfeiffer's seminary, and perhaps the only student there presently?

J. Paul ... there is an inconsistency, which means that there may have been some miscommunication between the priests as to the nature of the money. This is also incomplete, and we do not have all the facts in this case.

In any case, if the money had been misappropriated entirely, then why would Father donate more time of money long after this scenario unfolded?

I am not condemning either party, and neither should anyone else, for no one here has the full story, or even half the story.

We have the fact as communicated by Father Voigt whom we have no reason at all to doubt. Father knows what he has said.
Now, as I have heard there were accusations of theft etc. by the Kentucky sect against Father Voigt, which when the full story is known can be seen to have been false characterizations.  Was this also a simple miscommunication?
This is evidence of bad will. Now who is most likely to be telling the truth?

Father Pfeiffer has been at this juncture with his assistant a number of times from early on in the group's existence. Unless he does what needs to be done, and what should probably been done long ago, he must bear the responsibility for the demise of his groups reputation. I do not think that he will have another chance to repair the damage. He has become isolated and will have no one left save a few personality cultists.

As it is, there is more than sufficient of the story to place this group on the definite full stop red light list until they set their house in order.