As for Fr Moran, where are the Court cases in relation to these supposed incidents? There are none! What does the vetting service report in each of the countries concerned? Irish Vetting Service - no criminal record. Ministry of Justice in Martinique - no criminal record. DBS check in the UK reveals no criminal record. And NOTE WELL, all cases of clerical abuse in Martinique from 2021 are automatically reported to the Police there. So, clearly there are no cases against Fr Moran.

Good points. My thought was that, as there is no evidence of a criminal record, it may have been an "act against the sixth commandment" with someone above the age of consent. Hence, no criminal record, but still punished according to Canon law. Again, providing the emails are authentic. Though I don't see why they wouldn't be because that is something that can be easily confirmed or denied. The big issue I see is why have the Resistance bishop(s) not publicly mentioned this at all? If someone is making accusations against a priest with evidence, that is not something that should just be ignored

Is nobody aware of how these Conciliar Churchmen can be vicious and vindictive when they have been caught out, or their friends have been caught out. Look at this article to see the intimidation use when they have been crossed - https://www.ncronline.org/news/cardinals-former-diocese-denies-claim-clerical-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-cover  and scroll down to read these relevant paragraphs about the canon lawyer, Fr Arrascue taking on an abuse case and so upsetting the Conciliar authorities  --

In another surprising twist of events, a canon lawyer representing the victims, Father Ricardo Coronado Arrascue, has been sanctioned by the Peruvian bishops conference, which said, in an unsigned Aug. 22 statement, that the lawyer could no longer practice as a canonist in Peru and therefore could not continue to defend his current clients.
His native Diocese of Cajamarca informed the priest Aug. 29 that a complaint had been filed against him with the Dicastery of the Clergy at the Vatican for an alleged unspecified crime "contra sextum," or against the Sixth Commandment, and that the same Dicastery offers him the possibility of making a voluntary request to the pope to ask for dispensation from the priesthood under penalty of "the start of an administrative criminal trial."

"Cases" like this are highly unlikely and rare.

This would be like an Is-raylee official having a falling out with someone, and publicly accusing him of various war crymz. Um...they have more than enough PR troubles with that one. Why would they start something, which gives themselves a black eye in the process? It would make them look almost as bad as the guy they're attacking.

If the fellow gov't official supposedly committed w-r crymz, there must have been banned "supplies" and "equipment" around to commit those crimes with, and/or a culture promoting such behavior, in the first place. So in the end, the accuser would end up looking worse than the accused.


1. The Conciliar Church has enough scandal in this department. They don't need to give themselves additional black eyes.
2. It only makes *them* look bad, if they announce a man they formed for 10 years had "that problem". Just so they can brag how they got rid of him in the end? But they had him around for 10 years and they were clueless idiots?
3. There is a motive why they would resort to such drastic measures: Fr. Arrascue was representing sex abuse victims, and the diocese didn't like the sunlight highlighting their bad deeds.
4. The motive was not "I was just too Traditional for them, I guess!" That's basically the classic, "I'm just too good, and they are evil. The evil always persecute the good. *sigh*"
5. I note Fr. Arrascue's charge was vague and undefined. You know the postmodern joke: (quickly closes laptop) "I wasn't looking at nude photos of Donald Trump." "That's a curiously specific statement, there!" When something is true, you can at least mention SOME specifics, as you have so many. After all, it's reality and it happened, right?
6. I note that they threatened an "administrative criminal trial" which is not a "trial" at all, it's not what most of us picture when we hear "trial". They key word here is "administrative". It's about as much a "trial" as a boss all alone in his office deciding to fire someone.

In Conclusion --

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All things being equal, organizations don't just wake up and decide to "have it out for someone".
The larger the organization, the more unlikely it is. After all, there is a HUGE power disparity.
Do you go out of your way to persecute an individual ant? No. Of course not. You could crush him at any time. Why would you waste your time though?
Especially if crushing that ant was highly risky/inconvenient for your own reputation, career, etc.

That DOES NOT MEAN that injustice never happens, or that no one is ever persecuted unjustly.
BUT IT DOES MEAN that whenever it does happen (the exception), there is a rational, explainable reason for this extraordinary behavior.

You know the classic case of the criminal who is "persecuted by the police"? If you interview their mother, they will say with all conviction, "Oh, the police have it out for my dear ______!" NO, THEY DO NOT. They are enforcing the law, which your dear little child is breaking. If she wasn't selling drugs/herself on the street, the police wouldn't have the slightest problem with your daughter.

Did I miss the evidence that +Morgan or +Ballini was the superior or working with Moran?  Saying mass at the same private chapel doesn't seem to equate to that.  I'm confused.