Another good part:
B. NO SERIOUS CANONICAL INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED.
The sad situation which followed would have been averted if the Fathers, from the very beginning, would
have conducted a serious canonical investigation regarding Moran’s background, which was NEVER the
case.
Moran’s life followed such an unusual path and he claimed so many high ‘ecclesiastical dignities’ that
Prudence commanded to first verify ALL his claims. 7
At first sight it seems unbelievable that Abp. Lefebvre and all the Traditionalists missed getting
acquainted with this “archbishop” for more than 40 years and then, all of a sudden, Moran appears in 2015
from nowhere... offering his “episcopal services” to the Resistance! 8
In any case, a serious investigation about Moran’s claims was needed.
A Layman doing the Investigation...
In what did the Fathers’ “investigation” on Moran consist?
Basically the Fathers consulted several albums with pictures, docuмents, newspaper clippings ‐ obviously
ALL of them provided by Moran himself!
When much later some of these docuмents were released to the public, it was discovered that all the
supposed “evidence” brought by Moran to prove his claims was a cunning assortment of false and true
elements.
Fr. Hewko told Fr. Chazal in November 2015 that they “have been investigating Moran for six months”.
It is hard to believe that they never found ANY inconsistency about his claims. ANY... NONE. It was too good
to be true! It rather makes suspicious their impartiality in conducting this “investigation”.
When we look closer to their “investigation”, there were too many abnormalities.
The first abnormality in their “investigation” on Moran was that the Fathers never invited either our
two Bishops or other Resistance priests to take part in it. 9
Not only did the Fathers NEVER invite other confreres, but they ALWAYS rejected all the evidence other
priests brought against Moran’s claims, calling them “calumnies” or “forged docuмents” (sic).
The second abnormality was that the Fathers imprudently entrusted most of this investigation to
Gregory Taylor, a layman and editor of The Recusant. How could a layman, not having any theological and
canonical formation, be able to conduct such a delicate inquiry?
Taylor produced, at the end of October 2015 (during Moran’s second visit), the “official” result of his
investigation on Moran: a nine page docuмent called “Timeline and Objections on Ambrose Moran”, which
7
For instance, Moran claimed he was ordained a priest in 1974 and consecrated a Bishop in 1976 by Cardinal Slipyj,
who then appointed him “Archbishop” and chose him as his own successor as the head of all Ukrainian Catholics (sic).
In addition, Card. Slipyj supposedly entrusted Moran with the “mission” of assisting the Traditional Latin movement.
This is such an unusual path, which normally should create suspicion in any sound mind...
8
Fr. Pfeiffer really believes that Moran is the “new St. Josaphat”, as Moran claimed John Paul II (sic!) called him,
and that he is the Bishop who will save his Seminary, the Resistance and the Church!
9
Do the Fathers expect to introduce a new “Bishop” into the Catholic Resistance/Fidelity without informing or
asking the opinion of our two Bishops? The absence of this elementary procedure reveals in them a serious lack of
trust in our Bishops and the determination of the Fathers to present us with the fait accompli.
6
was sent to the confreres at the beginning of November. I received a copy, which I used as a reference for
my two studies on Moran. 10
Today the Fathers and Taylor try to minimize the OFFICIAL character of this investigation, because this
work was from the beginning an embarrassing fiasco...!
In the email I received from Fr Hewko on November 7, with Taylor’s work attached, we can read these
comments from Taylor himself concerning his own “Timeline”:
Dear Fathers,
Please find attached. I would also add that you probably want to send it to priests first, send a print
version not email, and send the relevant certificates and photos along with it too.
BTW, I know the name of the docuмent is "Timeline and Objections" and actually contains neither. I
realised that that wasn't the best way to go about it...
Ironically we can see that Taylor was not proud of his own work...
As for the “Objections”? None!
Truly, Taylor’s “investigation” reveals a totally biased acceptance of all Moran’s false claims and there is
nothing critical in it.
It especially reveals his total incompetence on this matter by avoiding searching for the eventual
Canonical proofs of Moran’s identity in the real places: the Sacramental Records in the Catholic Dioceses
and in Catholic Churches, where Moran’s supposed ordination and episcopal consecration took place.
Actually, there are no official records of them in any CATHOLIC institution, either in the United States or in
Rome!
On the contrary, other people, including myself, verified, for example, with the Ukrainian Catholics in
Rome and with the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto that there are no Catholic records of Moran. [See
my former study and the new evidence published recently]
Concerning the Catholic Dioceses where Moran worked, the ONLY authentic docuмent Moran provided
is that he was for two years “on loan”, but he was not incardinated, in the Catholic Ukrainian Eparchy of
Toronto from 1975 to 1977, as Fr. Bilinsky from the Toronto Eparchy confirmed to me. However, in the same
Eparchy, there is an extremely important Letter from Moran revealing his apostasy from the Catholic Church,
announcing candidly he was joining the Orthodox Church in America. The Fathers saw this Letter. 11
Another sign of Taylor’s (and the Fathers’) poor understanding on what constitutes a Canonical proof of
the reception of Holy Orders is that they focus too much on pictures, (sic) all provided by Moran himself,
though any seminarian studying Canon Law would know this is not a serious proof of valid or licit Orders...
[Refer to my former study about the doctored pictures and forged docuмents presented by Moran]
10
Fr. Pfeiffer paid a trip from London for Taylor to come to the Seminary in order to finalize his investigation by
interviewing Moran and analyzing all the docuмents provided by him. He was also a part of the trip to Chicago which
we will mention later.
11
Moran wrote a Letter to the Bishop Borecky of this Eparchy, dated June 30, 1980, asking him for a letter of
recommendation (sic!) for joining an Orthodox sect:
“I am writing to inform Your Grace that I have submitted to the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Archbishop Theodosius
of the Orthodox Church in America in order to regularize myself finally. [...] I am in the process of being received into
the Orthodox Church in America.”
This proof of the official apostasy of Moran from the Catholic Church was KNOWN by Fr. Pfeiffer, but he claims it
is a forged docuмent (sic). I received a copy of this Letter from Fr. Bilinsky, of the same Toronto Eparchy and it is in their
archives.
7
Taylor and the Fathers also wrongly concluded that because an ordination ceremony is held in a Catholic
building, it necessarily means the ordination is “Catholic”. They missed the point regarding the “ecuмenical
hospitality” practiced by the conciliar clergy in lending their buildings since Vatican II.
In addition, Taylor accepts as “normal” Moran’s claim that he has been twice ordained a priest and twice
consecrated a bishop... by Orthodox Bishops and by Card. Slipyj! How the Fathers can ‘square’ that with the
Catholic Theology on the character of the Sacrament of Orders?
As usually happens with any bad investigation, Taylor’s work did not ask the true questions (see my first
study), and instead left unanswered too many questions and opened new questions.
What is very concerning with Taylor’s poor work is that the OLMC Fathers accepted it as the OFFICIAL
conclusion of their investigation! This study is what Fr. Pfeiffer always has been using until today in his
defense of Moran’s claims with his confreres, in his conferences to the seminarians and in his sermons.
Father Pfeiffer used much later Taylor’s services to try to answer my first study on Moran, but it is so
poorly done that reveals all the way his total ignorance on canonical and theological matters...
Therefore, the “investigation” performed on Moran by Mr. Taylor on behalf of the Fathers was
incomplete, incompetent, inconsistent, biased, and misleading.
And despite all the grave deficiencies of this investigation, the Fathers continue until today to defend its
content fiercely.
Fr. Chazal, a SSPX‐MC member, commented unambiguously on November 16 to Fr. Hewko regarding
Taylor’s “investigation” on Moran’s claims:
“All this is the typical pathology of a liar”; and Taylor “goes on to tell us that it is because it looks so
much like a lie that it is true...” [...] “New lies for old, that is why moranists are not replying anything
about the old recent lies:”
Then, Fr. Chazal refutes point after point what he calls Moran’s “fairy tales”: his double ordination and
double episcopal consecration, his association with various Schismatic Orthodox sects, his supposed
ecclesiastical dignities, his degrees, etc. 12
Topic: Fr Ortizs final report re Moran (Read 2826 times)