-
Private email sent to bishop … next day, parents arrested?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm8vbQ67SPk
-
Link from the comments: https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 (https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8s_oOC_j4Ps.
-
I watched the video. It looks like an introduction to another video on the same topic.
My questions:
1-Where is the location?
2-What is the real name of this "Father Fake". If we want to warn other families, we need the name of this Fake-Abuser "Priest".
3-We need the name of the bishop who supports that Fake Priest.
4-A copy of the official email received from the diocese would be good too.
5-What is the name of the man making the video?
(In the Post title, we have a lot of names. But nothing specific in the video).
6-Is this video legit?
7-Or is it of the same kind than those made by a lunatic Irish lady against the Carmelite Sisters and Bp Ballini's seminary? Or like those published at Broadstairs against Bp Williamson and Fr. Abraham?
I know fake priests and fake bishops like to take advantage of Traditional families. I recall the case of a guy who was chaplain at the Powers Lake school, after Fr. Nelson passed away. It was eventually found out he had 4 aliases and had been moving around the US offering his "services" to traditional groups. Turned out he was a convicted felon and embezzler.
Yes, we need to be careful, and people should not receive priests without a thorough background check.
That's why we need more specific details on this case.
-
1-Where is the second video?
2nd video is surveillance footage of the arrest.
-
So this guy is in England and he has a private chapel. But he got a recommendation from the diocese? At least in America, private chapels and dioceses' don't mix. I know that most of England is Anglican and the Catholic population is small, but this still seems weird.
p.s. This guy is the famous piano player on youtube. Been watching him for years. Didn't realize he was a Trad. He's definitely believable. Whoever he got mixed up with was trying to scam him. I just don't understand how the diocese fits in with a private chapel on a farm.
-
2nd video is surveillance footage of the arrest.
Thanks. I guess the second video came as I was typing my first reply.
This is UK. And I thought California was bad!
UK is where they arrest you if you pray IN YOUR HEAD less than 200 feet away from an abortion clinic. And if you pray IN YOUR HOUSE if it is less than 200 feet away from such clinics!
UK is also where they cover up a Pakistani child grooming gang that abused 600 children.
BRITANNIA HAS BECOME INSANE!
-
He say bad priest was recommended by bishop morgan resistance
Which video did he say this?
-
Which video did he say this?
The video didn't give any names (possibly because he doesn't want another visit from the police?). The article he linked in the comments also doesn't give names, but does say SSPX Resistance and gives the location.
-
So this guy is in England and he has a private chapel. But he got a recommendation from the diocese? At least in America, private chapels and dioceses' don't mix.
No. The diocese in question is the one to which the man in the video asked about the fake priest. And the diocese replied to him that this fake priest was ordained there, but was later on defrocked because of sɛҳuąƖ abuse. I think the diocese is in the Caribbean Islands.
-
He must speak now. Silence is no holy.
How do you know who the priest is?
-
What is your role in all this, Rosario?
You don't sound anything like the British bloke in the video. You sound Hispanic with very broken English.
But it sounds like this issue is a very personal one for the man in the video. How were you even affected by all this? Was the "Father Fake" in Mexico for a while or something?
-
I think it should perhaps now be custom that any priest with a credible accusation of abuse is forever suspended from saying mass publicly or can only do so alone. Otherwise, he can spend time in penance in a monastery. Zero, absolutely zero, second chances. One is a priest forever, but can not do what a good priest is otherwise entitled to do.
-
OP's syntax seems a little odd for a non-native English speaker...almost like a native English speaker trying to appear foreign :popcorn:
Back to the topic, that guy has 2.5 million subs and the arrest video has 80k views in 5 hours. Not a good look for +Ballini and +Morgan if this is true, they shouldn't be having anything to do with priests like this. Repented, reformed or not it's just terrible optics
-
If I meet a "priest" and he will not even tell me who ordained him, he is not even stepping foot on my driveway.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xAAvsscdJsw
Looks like B. Kavanagh...
Beautiful choral singing, due in part to the H U G E Chapel. Worth a listen. About 7 months ago...Priest was late.
-
This is one of the perils of having "isolated pockets of resistance" where there is no coordination or background details whatsoever about who's who. The irony of this is that Dr K had to contact another archdiocese to get information and was responded cordially with the required details.
-
What proof do we have that the priest in question actually exists?
What are we supposed to do about it? You're not even naming the priest.
-
What proof do we have that the priest in question actually exists?
What are we supposed to do about it? You're not even naming the priest.
I think he's looking for answers. What's going on? Why did Bishop Morgan recommend this priest? When he wrote the e-mail complaining about the priest, Bishop Morgan then blocked him? I think there's a question of trust here, where Bishop Morgan needs to be transparent about the entire thing.
-
I think he's looking for answers. What's going on? Why did Bishop Morgan recommend this priest? When he wrote the e-mail complaining about the priest, Bishop Morgan then blocked him? I think there's a question of trust here, where Bishop Morgan needs to be transparent about the entire thing.
From this link posted earlier https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 it seems the predator was ordained deacon at the diocese of Fort-de-france (Martinique) and dismissed from the clerical state thereafter. From there, he moved to London, Cardiff, and now seems to be operating around Wales and Derry (Ireland). Thus he was never a priest in the first place. If he is presenting himself as a priest now, I would suspect this was because he was ordained by +Ballini, thus +Morgan could have relied on this information from +Ballini make the recommendation to Dr K? What a sad state of affairs that would be. I believe it would best for Dr K to reveal the details received from the diocese of Fort-de-france to clear this once and for all.
-
I think he's looking for answers. What's going on? Why did Bishop Morgan recommend this priest? When he wrote the e-mail complaining about the priest, Bishop Morgan then blocked him? I think there's a question of trust here, where Bishop Morgan needs to be transparent about the entire thing.
I agree we need lots of clarity from all involved. We don't even know if the whole story is true, to begin with.
Let's try to take a step back: Now we have accusations against an un-named Priest (Fr. Fake), by an un-named guy who has shades glued to his face even at church, and whose goal in life seems to be filmed and posted. Look at him with the joined hands and shades in church. It looks completely staged. Who really prays like that and is being filmed like that?
We don't even know if he is a faithful of the Resistance. I mean, look at the video of the arrest: His wife is in leggings, and his daughters in pants. That reminds me more of Indult or Neo-SSPX faithful.
Is the whole operation a publicity stunt? Was there a more serious reason for the complaint lodged against him? Was the arrest really linked to Fr. Fake? Or was the arrest made for other reasons? If we knew the name of Mr. Shades, and the location of the police station where he was taken, we could get information from the police about the reasons for the arrest.
I think that if you are going to throw bombshell videos, you should make sure you come up with all details, so as to avoid confusion.
Look at all the replies to this topic They all come with questions and suppositions. We want names, locations, dates, etc. We want a DOSSIER, not a click-bait video by a guy with shades.
And this topic was posted by a guy who created his profile today, just to post his bombshell. He doesn't speak English, he throws a stinking bomb on the platform, with no real details or proof, and a lot of questions and suppositions. The one who should have posted is the main character, the Shades Video Guy.
I am sick of the whole thing.
-
You are free to post links to anything from the public record, public internet.
As always, CathInfo is looking for facts here, not rumors, slander, or speculation.
As a matter of fact, slander is against the rules and gets routinely moderated (deleted).
-
I agree we need lots of clarity from all involved. We don't even know if the whole story is true, to begin with.
Let's try to take a step back: Now we have accusations against an un-named Priest (Fr. Fake), by an un-named guy who has shades glued to his face even at church, and whose goal in life seems to be filmed and posted. Look at him with the joined hands and shades in church. It looks completely staged. Who really prays like that and is being filmed like that?
We don't even know if he is a faithful of the Resistance. I mean, look at the video of the arrest: His wife is in leggings, and his daughters in pants. That reminds me more of Indult or Neo-SSPX faithful.
Is the whole operation a publicity stunt? Was there a more serious reason for the complaint lodged against him? Was the arrest really linked to Fr. Fake? Or was the arrest made for other reasons? If we knew the name of Mr. Shades, and the location of the police station where he was taken, we could get information from the police about the reasons for the arrest.
I think that if you are going to throw bombshell videos, you should make sure you come up with all details, so as to avoid confusion.
Look at all the replies to this topic They all come with questions and suppositions. We want names, locations, dates, etc. We want a DOSSIER, not a click-bait video by a guy with shades.
And this topic was posted by a guy who created his profile today, just to post his bombshell. He doesn't speak English, he throws a stinking bomb on the platform, with no real details or proof, and a lot of questions and suppositions. The one who should have posted is the main character, the Shades Video Guy.
I am sick of the whole thing.
From his past videos, Bishop Morgan and some Resistance-affiliated priests have celebrated Masses at Dr Kevanagh's stone barn chapel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX0i6il3aZw
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX0i6il3aZw)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG0clp1NPQY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYq3hktxhGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m9vVnNqHrw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG0clp1NPQY)
-
(https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7152&pid=13523#pid13523)Who is Fr. Kerry Moran?
(This seems to be an Fr. Hewko aligned publication, and anti +Williamson)
Kerry Michael Moran is a priest of the Fake Resistance. Since mid-2024 he has said Mass and heard confessions in England for the Mass centres of Bishop Paul Morgan, staying intermittently at Broadstairs and has since then spent time in Ireland where he said Mass heard confessions for the Mass centres of Bishop Giacomo Ballini, though we are told that in Ireland he went by the name Ciaran Moran. He also stayed at the house in Cork where Ballini lives with his priests and seminarians. In March of this year, an old acquaintance drew our attention to this in early 2025 after he received this email in reply to an enquiry:
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0Tx4qsN/Screenshot-2025-05-19-081711.png)
Very little effort is required to ascertain that this email is 100% genuine. Note the fact that it was sent not from the priest’s personal email account, but from the email address belonging to the chancery of the diocese (www.eglisemartinique.fr) is the website of the conciliar church in Martinique, a colonial outpost of France situated near Barbados in the Caribbean. The title under his name, “Chancellier intérimaire” means that he is the chancellor of the diocese, but as a temporary, not yet permanent, appointment. “Interim Chancellor” we might say. The same diocese website also reveals that the interim chancellor of the diocese is one Fr. Benoit Paul-Joseph, priest of the Fraternity of St Peter. The above email is therefore not a random email from an unknown stranger intent on causing mischief. It is not even an email from Fr. Benoit-Joseph as an individual priest: it is an official response from the chancellor of a conciliar diocese in his capacity as chancellor of that diocese.
The next question is this: is it true that the priest Kerry Moran is originally from the diocese of Fort - de - France in Martinique? Is this diocese really in a position to know what they are talking about when they warn people about him? Again, a quick internet search is our friend.
“Among the visiting clergy were Fr Emmanuel Chaulvet and Deacon Kerry Moran who are based in Martinique.” says a Novus Ordo news article from May 2018, about ordinations in Port of Spain diocese, in Trinidad and Tobago (https://catholictt.org/2018/05/25/it-can-bedone/).
Another publicly visible article from February 2017 reads:
“Mgr. David Macaire, Archbishop of our diocese will this year make a pastoral visit to our district from Monday 8th to Wednesday 10th May 2017, and will meet with the leaders of various different groups and movements in the following order: […] 11. The Mass servers with the seminarian Kerry Moran, diocesan MC” ...(“Les servants de messe avec le séminariste Kerry Moran, cérémoniaire diocésain.” -original article in French, translation is ours - http://paroissedufrancois.fr/visite-demg...d-macaire/ ).
As before, this is a Novus Ordo news website from that part of the world, in this case from Martinique. So we can gather that he was a seminarian in early 2017 and a deacon by May 2017. Remember that the conciliar church don’t do minor orders: your status is “seminarian” and nothing else, right up until you become a deacon. These dates fit with what the chancellor of Fort de France diocese says, that he was ordained deacon for that diocese in August 2017.
On the website of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, we find a 2014 article which mentions him thus:
“Please pray for vocations, especially for the following young men of the Archdiocese… Pray for Matthew Palmer (FSSP), Royston Price, Kerry Moran who have entered the religious life…” (https://lmscardiff.org.uk/vocations_to_t...ious_life/)
Exactly what “religious life” he had entered in 2014 remains unclear, but we gather that he tried his vocation a number of different places before ending up in Martinique. And come to think of it, what is a white guy from Wales doing in a black Caribbean French-speaking diocese? Not a crime, of course, and there might be a perfectly innocent explanation. But it does require an explanation, it isn’t normal. And was he eventually ordained a priest by that diocese or only deacon, in which case who ordained him a priest? One version we have heard is that it was Archbishop Vigano who ordained him to the priesthood. He himself, it seems, has been telling people that Bishop Williamson conditionally ordained him to the priesthood. So who knows what the truth is, there seem to be at least three possibilities there.
We gather that Fr. Moran is now telling people that his former diocese are persecuting him because he was too Traditional for them, or something similar. This doesn’t ring true somehow. Apart from being a suspiciously convenient excuse, the chancellor of the diocese happens to be a priest of the Fraternity of St Peter. And anyway, if Moran had always been so Traditional, so Traditional that his own diocese fabricated a very serious charge against him, why would he have chosen a Novus Ordo diocese in which to be a seminarian in the first place? Besides, say what you will about conciliar dioceses, surely they don’t go about inventing charges of child sɛҳuąƖ abuse where none exist; they take that sort of thing seriously and are under a lot of pressure to be seen to do so, especially in recent years.
Either way, our correspondents of the diocese of Fort-de-France were also in touch with Archbishop Vigano and received this reply from him:
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SZBcNHH/Screenshot-2025-05-19-082254.png)
Fr. Moran’s response to this, we are told, has been to accuse Archbishop Vigano of having it in for him. How convenient. His old conciliar diocese who ordained him deacon and the ‘Traditional’ bishop who he says ordained him priest, both somehow have ended up with a grudge against him, one so serious that they have decided to collude in the same fabricated story against him - does that sound plausible?
It is also important to note that Vigano says he informed Bishop Ballini. Why Ballini for his part decided to ignore the warning is anyone’s guess. Several people have tried to reach him in recent weeks, but he appeared to have gone off to Italy. Our correspondents sent both emails to Bishop Morgan, whom they had known since his SSPX days, and his response was to block them. It is also useful to note that if there is a distinct lack of evidence from the other side, i.e. from the Fake Resistance, that is because of their usual habit of “being discreet” following the advice of Bishop Williamson.
This means that very little is publicly verifiable. Unfortunately, it also means that it creates an atmosphere in which pederasts and child sɛҳuąƖ abusers can breathe a little more easily: such people are often consummate liars and not beyond reinventing themselves to outrun their own notorious reputations, and it is usually only by open communication that they are eventually brought to book.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdb8jGrt/Screenshot-2025-05-19-082639.png)
Fr. Kerry Moran certainly appears very keen to be ‘discreet’. Evidence abounds of how anxious he is not to have his name or even his picture out in public - he is not at all happy about it! Some might say that this is in itself suspicious. His stories to various people about how he is a top-level expert canon lawyer and that he is currently fighting cases in Rome to defend various unnamed Traditionalists also ring hollow to many. To others, he has said that it is himself that he is defending and that once his name gets out in connection with the ‘Resistance’ (by which he presumably means the Fake Resistance), it will ruin his chances of a fair trial. Again, it all rings a little hollow.
And of course, it is impossible to contact the man himself because - you’ve guessed it - everything is top secret, the whole apostolate has to operate behind closed doors, there is no public point of contact anywhere that we can see.
Why Does it Matter?
Bishops Morgan and Ballini refuse to take any responsibility for the man they introduced to their own faithful. Even the laity, some of them it seems, are intent on defending this man, just as some of them have (we are reliably informed) taken in recent years to telling people that Fr. Stephen Abraham is totally innocent and never did anything. Incredible but true. Let us just take a moment to ponder what it must take to produce such a head-in-the-sand response. The mind boggles.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyL8KPT6/Screenshot-2025-05-19-082811.png)
It is tempting to hope that the stubbornness, blindness and unwillingness to face facts or take responsibility may be the undoing of the Fake Resistance. But let us be realistic: the secular world around us will not make any distinction between us and them, and we will end up being tarred with the same brush. In the meantime, this may not be the last we have heard of the matter. Stay tuned…
-
The SSPX routinely apply 1983 Canon Law to their 'problematic' priests. The resistance applies the 1917 code (one would assume)
https://catholicconfidential.substack.com/p/lawsuit-shows-sspx-obedience-to-1983 (https://catholicconfidential.substack.com/p/lawsuit-shows-sspx-obedience-to-1983)
The article suggests that the SSPX applys the law assuming that the that the pedophile is a victim of his impulses.
(https://i.imgur.com/LNUyI1O.png)
It seems unlikely that a resistance priest would refuse to reveal who ordained him. There are women in trousers at these barn masses so it's another red flag that this isn't a resistance mass
-
Why would Resistance bishops/priests associate with this guy to begin with? Do they just offer mass for anyone who asks? Again, this guy has 2.5 million subscribers on YouTube, basically a public figure with a large online presence. They couldn't have done a little research to find out more about him?
So, terrible optics on both fronts. They shouldn't have had anything to do with the fornicator priest, and they shouldn't have had anything to do with this piano guy
White marker indicates bare skin
(https://i.imgur.com/0Y0jetn.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jgKrRBM.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bwf5nxi.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ScA0Sjz.jpeg)
-
Ugh!
Those photos... it really makes you wonder about that guy. That's a huge understatement though.
Isn't he married? Why is he flirting and cavorting with women like that? Those are single moment snapshots. What happened minutes before and after those snapshots? We're not talking about a man taking a simple photo standing next to a woman wearing typical modern attire, such as shorts or pants. No, nothing that banal.
Having a woman do the splits on your piano? Holding grossly immodestly dressed women close? That one woman has her leg overlapping on him, and look at how much paint had to be applied to make the image non-pornographic!
At least one of those photos is probably his wife. Maybe they all are his wife? But even if they were, it's grossly immodest and promoting indecency. It is not lawful for a Catholic to use sex (in ANY form, even subtle suggestion or titillation) to promote their brand, business, etc. We're talking about making people think about sex when they otherwise wouldn't be. That is not permitted by Catholic morality. There are NINE ways to commit sin, remember? One of them is to lead others into sin.
This man needs to look into Catholic morality. Does he even know what an occasion of sin is? Does he know that leading others into sin is ITSELF a sin?
This man wants to be a rock star, complete with the "sex" component of that lifestyle. That seems to be a bigger priority for him than being a good (Traditional) Catholic.
-
My questions:
1-Where is the location?
2-What is the real name of this "Father Fake". If we want to warn other families, we need the name..."
I know fake priests and fake bishops like to take advantage of Traditional families. I recall the case of a guy who was chaplain at the Powers Lake school, after Fr. Nelson passed away. It was eventually found out he had 4 aliases and had been moving around the US offering his "services" to traditional groups. Turned out he was a convicted felon and embezzler.
Yes, we need to be careful,
This is remarkable! About that Powers Lake situation, I wanted to join a religious community and had known about Fr. Nelson since about 1974 . Anyway I called that "priest" and I was planning to join him. On the phone call he was a smooth, erudite and full of confidence, like, very lucid and genuine. So I told my priest in Canada about my plans, but within 2 days SSPX announced that he was a complete fraud!!!Yet he was saying mass for those nuns and faithful at Powers Lake. So it is difficult to trace these criminals, as they are very intelligent, and as + Vigano says...insidious. Too bad Bishop Vigano got deceived and ordained him! The bright side about this Dr. K. incident is that today we know the name, 95% certainty, of this charlatan cleric "Fr." Kerry Moran. ***
Dr. Brendan K. could probably use a 30 day Ignatian retreat, no?
-
Ugh!
Those photos... it really makes you wonder about that guy. That's a huge understatement though.
Isn't he married? Why is he flirting and cavorting with women like that? Those are single moment snapshots. What happened minutes before and after those snapshots? We're not talking about a man taking a simple photo standing next to a woman wearing typical modern attire, such as shorts or pants. No, nothing that banal.
Having a woman do the splits on your piano? Holding grossly immodestly dressed women close? That one woman has her leg overlapping on him, and look at how much paint had to be applied to make the image non-pornographic!
Not to mention the "Pablo" vibes with the sunglasses.
This man needs to look into Catholic morality. Does he even know what an occasion of sin is?
Yeah, and that paint was not applied liberally either! 1:1 ratio paint to skin :facepalm:
Videos (warning: they are immodest)
https://youtube.com/shorts/n_op08g-K0I
(https://youtube.com/shorts/n_op08g-K0I)https://youtube.com/shorts/Mixxy8GQhb4
(https://youtube.com/shorts/Mixxy8GQhb4)https://youtube.com/shorts/8gg2TNZwBnQ
(https://youtube.com/shorts/8gg2TNZwBnQ)https://youtube.com/shorts/r3Flf41Bck0
(https://youtube.com/shorts/r3Flf41Bck0)https://youtube.com/shorts/9jXTs6T1V5E
(https://youtube.com/shorts/9jXTs6T1V5E)
So now, because the Resistance bishops in England/Ireland have (for whatever reason) not cut ties with Moran, and apparently did not do a lick of research regarding this piano guy, you not only have non-Catholics and Novus Ordoites given more ammo against Trad clergy regarding sex abuse/child predation/immortality..people are also now speculating that the Bishop (Either +Bellini or +Morgan) was colluding with the government/police to set the piano guy up because he is vocally anti-CCP, pro-free speech, anti-police state.
This all could have been avoided by saying NO to this guy's request for mass, and giving Fr. Moran the boot. What is going on over there??
-
My philosophy:
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I don't know what's going on, but the more light is shed on the issue the better.
-
Excerpt from StoneWallCatholic
My questions:
1-Where is the location?
2-What is the real name of this "Father Fake". If we want to warn other families, we need the name..."
*****
On Facebook Ireland Resistance, 3 months ago, post about + Ballini re: Kerry Michael Moran.
I can't read the comments as I don't have FBook account. See attached Screenshot.
-
This is remarkable! About that Powers Lake situation, I wanted to join a religious community and had known about Fr. Nelson since about 1974 . Anyway I called that "priest" and I was planning to join him. On the phone call he was a smooth, erudite and full of confidence, like, very lucid and genuine. So I told my priest in Canada about my plans, but within 2 days SSPX announced that he was a complete fraud!!!Yet he was saying mass for those nuns and faithful at Powers Lake. So it is difficult to trace these criminals, as they are very intelligent, and as + Vigano says...insidious. Too bad Bishop Vigano got deceived and ordained him! The bright side about this Dr. K. incident is that today we know the name, 95% certainty, of this charlatan cleric "Fr." Kerry Moran. ***
Dr. Brendan K. could probably use a 30 day Ignatian retreat, no?
How do you know vigano ordaine
-
Excerpt from StoneWallCatholic
My questions:
1-Where is the location?
2-What is the real name of this "Father Fake". If we want to warn other families, we need the name..."
*****
On Facebook Ireland Resistance, 3 months ago, post about + Ballini re: Kerry Michael Moran.
I can't read the comments as I don't have FBook account. See attached Screenshot.
That is just a comment under the post asking about the Moran situation, which no one responded to. I don't believe +Ballini acknowledged questions about Moran in his response to the NO bishop
-
Let me get this straight --
(3) different Conciliar dioceses reported "lavender" problems with this priest?
That's not a conspiracy by Piano Man, someone with a grudge, etc.
Besides, why would the Novus Ordo *make up* another sex abuse scandal? Aren't they black & blue from this issue already (from the past 25 years)? Why would they severely damage themselves, just to damage some man's reputation? That doesn't even make sense. Also, they would be responsible for *making* him as well as casting him out, since he was with them for 10 years.
Any satisfying explanation (exonerating this priest) would have to answer that question: why would several distinct Dioceses report the same problem with a man? Why would they lie about this? So much smoke, but no fire at all, huh?
Also: from the Conciliar Church point of view, SSPX/True resistance/Fake resistance/Pfeifferville/Fr. Hewko = all the same thing to them. They're not going to "pick a side" in the fight within Tradition.
I'm not buying it.
And "They persecute me because I'm so traditional" is the oldest excuse in the book. Everyone uses it. You could have a legitimate rap sheet of crimes, and come sobbing to some Traditional Bishop, "Oh, they are just making up lies about me to destroy my reputation. I am persecuted for the truth, because I'm Traditional!" and a percentage of Trad bishops would buy it -- especially if they were desperate for priests (helpers, market share, income, influence, etc.)
That excuse is as old as the hills.
I'm going to keep an open mind about this. But I'm not going to let my brain slide out and plop onto the floor, either.
-
And "They persecute me because I'm so traditional" is the oldest excuse in the book. Everyone uses it. You could have a legitimate rap sheet of crimes, and come sobbing to some Traditional Bishop, "Oh, they are just making up lies about me to destroy my reputation. I am persecuted for the truth, because I'm Traditional!" and a percentage of Trad bishops would buy it -- especially if they were desperate for priests (which would mean for them: more helpers, easier life, more market share, income, influence, power, etc.)
That excuse is as old as the hills.
Yes, you might be Traditional, but that doesn't mean you can't commit crimes, or that every punishment you receive is BECAUSE you are Traditional.
P.S. Another thought to keep in mind:
God often uses imperfect, sometimes downright evil, instruments to work His holy will.
Pontius Pilate insisted on the placard, "Jesus Christ, King of the Jews". That was God's will. (although Pilate probably went to hell)
-
Maybe we can all agree... this thing stink, no?
For the record, I think you are bogus too, "Rosario", with your lame attempt at a Spanish accent. Or should I call you by your other names?
TheNewVendee
coeurvoil
LeeAnnepraystherosary
Because you all have the same IP address.
But as I said above: the instrument being "shady", sinful, or imperfect does NOT automatically disprove what they are trying to promote. Basic logic.
-
And "They persecute me because I'm so traditional" is the oldest excuse in the book. Everyone uses it. You could have a legitimate rap sheet of crimes, and come sobbing to some Traditional Bishop, "Oh, they are just making up lies about me to destroy my reputation. I am persecuted for the truth, because I'm Traditional!" and a percentage of Trad bishops would buy it -- especially if they were desperate for priests (helpers, market share, income, influence, etc.)
Yep. Many of the predators use this tactic. Urrutigoity ... claimed he was just being slandered, persecuted for his opposition to sedevacantism. There were others at STAS who claimed they had been kicked out of other places for being "too Traditional" ... but later the truth sometimes came out, where sometimes it were violations of purity, but in one case the seminarian failed a psychological exam that he claimed was rigged to disqualify conservative types (but after I got to know him, realized there may very well have been some valid findings there).
-
Yep. Many of the predators use this tactic. Urrutigoity ... claimed he was just being slandered, persecuted for his opposition to sedevacantism.
Even if you're against sedevacantism, you have to think that no priest would make up allegations of sodomitical predations over theological differences ... and thereby commit grave sin.
-
For the record, I think you are bogus too, "Rosario", with your lame attempt at a Spanish accent.
Yes, totally bogus accent.
And the Piano guy is totally believable. He's had a chapel for a while now and is kinda a famous person. No reason for him to lie. a) it hurts his reputation/job, b) hurts his ability to find priests to use his chapel.
The larger question is -- How did England's "harassment" laws get so extreme? You send a few emails and you go to jail? That's insane.
-
How do you know vigano ordaine
Sorry, I don't want to start a rumor, but the long post of WorldsAway mentions this:
"...
One version we have heard is that it was Archbishop Vigano who ordained him to the priesthood. He himself, it seems, has been telling people that Bishop Williamson conditionally ordained him to the priesthood. So who knows what the truth is, there seem to be at least three possibilities there. ..."
*****
So at this point of this important investigation, that is only a possibility. +Vigano admits he was deceived , so there was at the least some communication. ..even with +W.
Ps. You have many fiends that use you computer ¿
-
Accent fake? Maybe. Arrests? Emails? Silence? That not fake, hermano.
That's essentially what I just said, ese
-
Yes, totally bogus accent.
And the Piano guy is totally believable. He's had a chapel for a while now and is kinda a famous person. No reason for him to lie. a) it hurts his reputation/job, b) hurts his ability to find priests to use his chapel.
The larger question is -- How did England's "harassment" laws get so extreme? You send a few emails and you go to jail? That's insane.
If you think about it - and say the theories are true - the pedophile priests have the same evil master as the liberal elites. Somewhere a demon opens his eyes and swoops in to support both. Well ... Windswept House etc. etc. The same vice ....
-
… I ask only simple. Any update now?
Irish say Bishop Ballini hide in Roma.
Some say Bishop Williamson ordain Moran… other say Viganò.
Where is Fr. Moran now? He say anything since all this happen?
-
This story hasn't even hit the news yet AFAIK. I suspect it is going to be big
Slowly making the rounds..
https://www.reddit.com/r/ExTraditionalCatholic/comments/1lkb43x/trad_bishop_and_priest_seek_revenge_on/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ExTraditionalCatholic/comments/1lkb43x/trad_bishop_and_priest_seek_revenge_on/)
(https://i.imgur.com/ew5RbV6.png)
Bro thinks we are going to hunt the exTrads down :laugh2:
-
Quote from: WorldsAway (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg990737#msg990737) 6/26/2025, 12:18:40 PM
This story hasn't even hit the news yet AFAIK. I suspect it is going to be big
Slowly making the rounds..
https://www.reddit.com/r/ExTraditionalCatholic/comments/1lkb43x/trad_bishop_and_priest_seek_revenge_on/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ExTraditionalCatholic/comments/1lkb43x/trad_bishop_and_priest_seek_revenge_on/)
Bro thinks we are going to hunt the exTrads down :laugh2:
No, he didn't really suggest that. What he DID suggest was that CathInfo was as problematic as, say, "Stormfront" or "4Chan". The kind of website you wouldn't want your boss to catch you reading. Or, the kind of website you clear your browser history after visiting. Give me a break!
CathInfo is a discussion board of serious, faithful Traditional Catholics fighting the evils of the modern world and sharing information and opinions on matters important to Catholics living in the modern age. How is that fundamentally bad? Strictly speaking, Traditional Catholic is just CATHOLIC. I always say we should give benefit of the doubt to non-Trads, since many don't know any better. But in the main, non-Trads are barely Catholic and often not Catholic.
How do you tell which ones are non-Catholic? Well, they are usually hostile towards "Traditional Catholics"... ;)
We prick their conscience by our strict morality, fidelity to Catholic doctrine, etc. -- the same effect we have on protestants and other non-Catholics.
We agree about one thing though: "Had no idea he would be a trad based on his choice of music genre, but whatever."
-
The larger question is -- How did England's "harassment" laws get so extreme? You send a few emails and you go to jail? That's insane.
Excellent point. There is no way the UK police forces would send three patrol cars of personnel to someone who had queried the status of a cleric with a bishop who has no official status. They do not have the resources. In most parts of the UK police no longer attend burglary scenes etc as police numbers were, drastically, cut back in the 2010s. Numbers like seen in the video would be a response to a serious crime or the allegation of one. The latter possibility is disturbing as it suggests 'Dr K's quite reasonable query about the status of Moran was not welcome or well received to say the least.
-
Here is Brendan Kavanaugh giving us a tour of his barn chapel
https://youtu.be/avjpk38v8oo? (https://youtu.be/avjpk38v8oo?)
It's obvious that he has a great reverence for the mass. It seems that all he was looking for was a priest who knew the traditional mass, and Father Fake is got what pushed his way.
-
Here is Brendan Kavanaugh giving us a tour of his barn chapel
https://youtu.be/avjpk38v8oo? (https://youtu.be/avjpk38v8oo?)
It's obvious that he has a great reverence for the mass. It seems that all he was looking for was a priest who knew the traditional mass, and Father Fake is got what pushed his way.
I have never met him but a friend of mine has and says Brendan, aka 'DrK', is a good thing. He has made his chapel available to Catholics. It there are doubts about the status of any cleric - especially in these dark days we live - the faithful have an absolute right to know the truth.
-
Here is Brendan Kavanaugh giving us a tour of his barn chapel
https://youtu.be/avjpk38v8oo? (https://youtu.be/avjpk38v8oo?)
It's obvious that he has a great reverence for the mass. It seems that all he was looking for was a priest who knew the traditional mass, and Father Fake is got what pushed his way.
Yes, I followed DrK for many years, enjoying his piano videos, not knowing he was even catholic (when he's jamming to boogie woogie music, the topic of religion doesn't come up). Then he starts showing videos of that chapel (I didn't know it was his) and him playing the organ. It was very edifying. He seems like a normal guy just trying to practice the Faith.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8lVmWcWQo
-
Can anyone give me the Reader's Digest of what the heck is going on here (in non-broken English) please?
-
Behold the pinnacle of Catholic devotion and purity—nails painted like a glittery masterpiece and earrings that scream "altar boy chic", truly a fashion miracle straight from the sacred runway. This guy’s clearly on a fast track to sainthood, leading the flock with his impeccable fashion sense. Oh, thank you, "Rosario" for so divinely delivering this radiant beacon of holiness—truly a miraculous gift straight from the heavens to grace our sinful eyes!
(https://i.imgur.com/DxUY09I.png)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8lVmWcWQo
Yeah, that's super-weak ... some unnamed "exorcist" trained by Ripperger had some bad feelings about this priest? Personally, I find something very off about Fr. Ripperger ... but that's equally subjective.
Also, what's this "Father Fake" stuff? Name the names. People have a right to know and he needs to be exposed. Heck, I would even post pictures of him.
So, another thing that rubs me the wrong way ... he spoke approvingly of the "official Church" and used the disparaging term "splinter group". So if he's all about the official Church and against "spliter groups", what was he doing associating with a priest who had some relationship with The Resistance. Something doesn't smell right about this whole thing ... like could it be some kind of delibereately set-up smear campaign.
Do we know for sure that Fathers Morgan and/or Ballini have even heard about what's going on? Perhaps someone here who has their contact information should ask them.
-
Behold the pinnacle of Catholic devotion and purity—nails painted like a glittery masterpiece and earrings that scream "altar boy chic", truly a fashion miracle straight from the sacred runway. This guy’s clearly on a fast track to sainthood, leading the flock with his impeccable fashion sense. Oh, thank you, "Rosario" for so divinely delivering this radiant beacon of holiness—truly a miraculous gift straight from the heavens to grace our sinful eyes!
(https://i.imgur.com/DxUY09I.png)
Ah sí . . . you talk nails, earrings, glitter . . .
But not say nothing of bishop who ordain convicted man?
Is this Resistance . . . or distraction?
-
I am of the same questioning: What happened?? What is happening?
In March?, Dr. K asks + M for a priest to say Latin Mass at his ' barn Chapel. Fr. Fake M○ran obliges/ sets many preconditions ie SECRECY. Red flags . Several days later Dr K is suspicious about Fr.Fake , gets some info FINALLY!, from NO diocese...so Fr. M♡ran has been defrocked in Martinique... for sins against the 6th commandment.
Dr. K angry at + M, then sends emails to +M and Fr. Fake. I think he got blocked by +M. After many angry emails to Fr. FAKE, APRIL 1, coppers arrest DR. K and wife/ recorded on security camera. . FR. FAKE had reported Harrasment to law enforcement against Brendan Kavanagh. I suppose they went to jai l ? But obviously they were released...
Clear as mud?
Oh! + Ballini is in Italy.
Kerry M○ran = Ciaran moron ( sick) [ a Ciaran Moran was a convict 2015]
-
Ah sí . . . you talk nails, earrings, glitter . . .
But not say nothing of bishop who ordain convicted man?
Is this Resistance . . . or distraction?
We do know that Archbishop Vigano has denounced this "Father Fake" and has stated that he should not be in any kind of ministry and should be avoided. Bishop Williamson has passed on, so he can't speak for himself.
Really the only question is how much Bishop Morgan and/or Ballini even know about the matter, and whether they would put out some kind of warning.
So in the first video, this Piano Guy (who very suspiciously makes disparaging comments about "splinter groups" and speaks approvingly of the "official Church" and yet gets involved with a priest from the splinter group) states that he sent an e-mail to Father Fake and to Bishop Morgan, receiving no response other than being arrested later for harassment. I think the implication he's trying to make is that Bishop Morgan called the police on him ... whereas it could just as easily have been "Father Fake".
There's much that stinks about this whole situation ...
-
Yeah, that's super-weak ... some unnamed "exorcist" trained by Ripperger had some bad feelings about this priest? Personally, I find something very off about Fr. Ripperger ... but that's equally subjective.
Also, what's this "Father Fake" stuff? Name the names. People have a right to know and he needs to be exposed. Heck, I would even post pictures of him.
So, another thing that rubs me the wrong way ... he spoke approvingly of the "official Church" and used the disparaging term "splinter group". So if he's all about the official Church and against "spliter groups", what was he doing associating with a priest who had some relationship with The Resistance. Something doesn't smell right about this whole thing ... like could it be some kind of delibereately set-up smear campaign.
Do we know for sure that Fathers Morgan and/or Ballini have even heard about what's going on? Perhaps someone here who has their contact information should ask them.
You don’t believe? Try for yourself . . .
Ask Bishop Morgan. Ask Bishop Ballini.
They ignore you . . . or block you.
That silence speak louder than glitter.
-
You don’t believe? Try for yourself . . .
Ask Bishop Morgan. Ask Bishop Ballini.
They ignore you . . . or block you.
That silence speak louder than glitter.
Read my previous post. At this time we have no idea how much Bishops Morgan and/or Ballini even know about the current situation ... since we only have claims made by someone who's highly suspicious. That's why I urged someone here who has contact information for +Morgan / +Ballini to reach out to them for comment. If they are covering something up, then I'll be the first to denounce them ... but there's a massive shortage of confirmed factual information, and tons of insinuation.
-
He post video above only a few hour ago the silence demonic
Ah, OK ... so I'm sure everyone is just scouring Youtube 24/7 where if you don't respond to something within hours of some random Youtube post, it's "demonic".
-
Looks like B. Kavanagh...
Beautiful choral singing, due in part to the H U G E Chapel. Worth a listen. About 7 months ago...Priest was late.
So he fills the sanctuary with women ... even while the "Blessed Sacrament"(?) is exposed?
-
Hermano . . . many people docuмenting this since 2013.
You're starting to expose yourself as a liar.
According to the communication, this guy was put on trial for crirmes against children in 2022 and only convicted in the middle of 2024. So how did they know something in 2013? Then in another post you said 2016.
-
Since 2016 not hours it just go mainstream. Many resistance already know this and try to warn for years
No, you claimed that it was demonic that no response had been made hours after some Youtube video was posted. Stop lying.
So it was 2016, and earlier it was 2013 ... and yet the Diocese only put him on trial in 2022 for various crimes against the 6th Commandment, and found him guilty in mid-2024. Which one is it?
-
Unless you post some real information and stop it with these stupid games, I feel that you need to be banned and this thread deleted. It's been one contradiction and lie after another form you ... with some very obvious malicious intent against the Resistance, an ax to grind.
This reminds me of the Voris attacks ... where even there were some cases that they were right about, all along you can sense a malice that was driving their "investigation" rather than legitimate concern for potential victims. Same thing. I don't think this guy is actually concerned about souls or potential victims, but relishing having some reason to attack the Resistance.
Closest thing we have to factual information is ...
1) Piano Man (who's also a bit suspicious) claiming Bishop Morgan blocked him. We don't even know for sure why Bishop Morgan blocked him. Was this guy flooding his Inbox? Seems strange that he would get arrested just for e-mail, even if England
2) an alleged letter written by +Vigano indicating that Bishop Ballini had been informed but has refused to disassociate himself with the predator.
While I took the legitimacy of the +Vigano letter for granted, given the obviouis malice from this poster here, I'm doubling back and questioning whether it's real ... and will certainly not take his word for it.
-
Given your fractured English, could you be none other than Pablo?
You thread just stinks of a malicious smear campaign. Present some evidence and concrete information or stop posting ... at the risk of your soul.
Don't fall for the fake accent. He admitted it was "maybe" fake -- but he's sticking with it, so he doesn't embarrass himself. His other (English speaking) accounts were banned. Which is kind of funny in a way, how it turned out.
But his manner of speaking is NOTHING like Pablo.
-
Yes hermano . . . is demonic silence.
That silence no from Heaven.
Matthew ... I think it's time to dump this guy.
Surely you can write a coherent sentence and then at least put it in Google translate to turn it into actual understandable English.
Zero factual information, contradictions, lies, and clear malice against the Resistance.
This jackass needs to go if he won't provide actual, concrete, factual information along with some evidence for it ... plus this faked (bovine excrement) incoherent posts.
I'm not sure why you allow this crap to go on so long. If he can't put up, then he needs to be shut up, and have the forum as a vehicle on which to slander people. I'm the first one that would call out +Morgan / +Ballini if they did something wrong. I'm not officially associated with the Resistance ... but don't think that any of the Conciliar papal claimants were legitimate popes, so I have no horse in this race ... but I can't stand to see people slandered by insinuation, without any concrete factual information, especially when people clearly have an agenda like this guy here.
-
Don't fall for the fake accent. He admitted it was "maybe" fake -- but he's sticking with it, so he doesn't embarrass himself. His other (English speaking) accounts were banned. Which is kind of funny in a way, how it turned out.
But his manner of speaking is NOTHING like Pablo.
Regardless ... this guy needs to put up or shut up, and he's had plenty of opportunity and multiple requests to provide something concrete. IMO he needs to be banned and this thread either archived under a Members Only section and / or deleted until such a time as real verifiable information is provided. In fact, even if some malfeasance were established at some later date, this thread is still garbage and needs to go.
-
Regardless ... this guy needs to put up or shut up, and he's had plenty of opportunity and multiple requests to provide something concrete. IMO he needs to be banned and this thread either archived under a Members Only section and / or deleted until such a time as real verifiable information is provided. In fact, even if some malfeasance were established at some later date, this thread is still garbage and needs to go.
Ok, opinion noted.
I'm the moderator. I never asked for your help to do my job.
-
If truth not welcome here . . . then yes, I be banned.
Don't think for a minute that's why you're not banned. "If you ban me, then you're against the truth! So there!"
You're not banned because I decided not to ban you. That's it. Whether you're on the truth's side or not is COMPLETELY up in the air at this point.
-
Matthew ... I think it's time to dump this guy.
Surely you can write a coherent sentence and then at least put it in Google translate to turn it into actual understandable English.
Zero factual information, contradictions, lies, and clear malice against the Resistance.
This jackass needs to go if he won't provide actual, concrete, factual information along with some evidence for it ... plus this faked (bovine excrement) incoherent posts.
I'm not sure why you allow this crap to go on so long. If he can't put up, then he needs to be shut up, and have the forum as a vehicle on which to slander people. I'm the first one that would call out +Morgan / +Ballini if they did something wrong. I'm not officially associated with the Resistance ... but don't think that any of the Conciliar papal claimants were legitimate popes, so I have no horse in this race ... but I can't stand to see people slandered by insinuation, without any concrete factual information, especially when people clearly have an agenda like this guy here.
My guess is he's part of Pfiefferville or a Fr. Hewko supporter
The info about Kerry Moran was taken from the Recusant paper, posted on The Catacombs forum. While I do think they would have an agenda against +Williamson and associated bishops/priests, it does seem like credible info which could be confirmed by contacting the NO diocese and Vigano. I don't think they would lie about something like that. IIRC Novus Ordo dioceses in Ireland (possibly England as well?) have already warned about Moran, maybe a year or two ago?
-
My guess is he's part of Pfiefferville or a Fr. Hewko supporter
The info about Kerry Moran was taken from the Recusant paper, posted on The Catacombs forum. While I do think they would have an agenda against +Williamson and associated bishops/priests, it does seem like credible info which could be confirmed by contacting the NO diocese and Vigano. I don't think they would lie about something like that. IIRC Novus Ordo dioceses in Ireland (possibly England as well?) have already warned about Moran, maybe a year or two ago?
My agenda right now . . . only this: protect the little ones.
And make bishop speak.
I beg all of you—please.
I know this is hard. We love. We hope. We don’t want to find fault.
But silence hurts Our Lady’s Heart more than words ever could.
Truth is not attack. Truth is mercy before justice come.
-
Here is the Bishop of Martinique.
Anyone else's "Ray dar" going off?
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=David+Thomas+Daniel+Macaire%2c+O.P.+(7+Mar+2015+Appointed+-+)&form=HDRSC3&first=1
Boy, I wouldn't want to be a priest who served under him for a number of years...it would say a lot about me!
Right?
Question: If you were a seminarian/cleric/priest and showed up to Martinique and this was your Bishop, how many minutes/days/weeks would you stick around?
-
Lad, I think you're getting too distracted by "Rosario". He's likely a former CathInfo member who was banned for some combination of red-light/Pfeiffer/Hewko nonsense. But, broken clocks aren't always wrong, so it's worth evaluating the facts and seeing if there's any substance there.
Did you read the article in post #2? There are 3 separate dismissals mentioned. The odds of that happening and the individual being innocent is low. The accused is well aware of the information being discussed here and is free to defend himself with facts if he so chooses.
-
Link from the comments: https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 (https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)
This article is the sum of the conversation. I've read several times and am still trying to figure out what all it says. I thought about writing to the author for clarification, but haven't done so. Here's his email if anyone has the time: liam.tunney@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
(liam.tunney@belfasttelegraph.co.uk)
What I've concluded from the article is that "PianoMan" didn't just send emails to Fr/Bp, he took the information he got from Martinique and reached out to the press. You can see the email sent to PianoMan is quoted exactly in the article with the priest's name redacted. Also, either PianoMan or the reporter found "FrFake" in an old prayer request online and contacted that diocese (Cardiff). The diocese confirmed that "FrFake" had been a volunteer there 20 years ago and was dismissed. Now, the significant element here is that they didn't just answer the email and then ignore it. The Cardiff diocese reached out to the diocese where "FrFake" is working in Ireland to warn that bishop of his presence. So, they clearly considered this to be serious. That bishop (Derry) then published a warning about the SSPX Resistance and "FrFake" in all of their bulletins.
The article also mentions a dismissal from London for similar reasons, but gives no mention as to the source of that allegation. However, the London time period would immediately proceed his relocation to Martinique, so take of that what you will.
-
Don't fall for the fake accent. He admitted it was "maybe" fake -- but he's sticking with it, so he doesn't embarrass himself. His other (English speaking) accounts were banned. Which is kind of funny in a way, how it turned out.
But his manner of speaking is NOTHING like Pablo.
I called it out in the excess male threads, his broken English over using ellipses is very weird even for a non native speaker, plus his comments were so ridiculous that it just came off as poor trolling.
-
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41603506.html
April 1, 2025 AD.
(Can someone verify the date the cops went to arrest DrK & wife? Not 100% sure if it was April 1... or if he made comments about the arrest video on April 1...hmmm
That being said, what a coincidence, albeit in another country.)
****((
Excerpts:
"...A Garda complaint has been made about a fundamentalist Catholic group based in Cork, which has allowed a defrocked priest to say mass despite alleged safeguard breaches..."
The Society of St Pius Resistance, a splinter group of..."
"...Bishop Giacomo Ballini, who runs the SSPX branch in Ireland, was heavily criticised by the Archbishop of Perth Timothy Costello after saying a mass in the city with a priest who had been removed from his position by the diocese..."
****
Fr. Fake told a parishioner + W ordained him.. +V said both he and H.E. were deceived... So, would that ordination be valid?... in this case of deception ? I wouldn't be surprised if FrFAKE produces some type of proof of his ordination. This would give a black eye to the Resistance, to put it mildly. Without +Williamson RIP. to check with, this story is mysterious/ suspicious...
Pray+
-
April 1, 2025 AD.
(Can someone verify the date the cops went to arrest DrK & wife? Not 100% sure if it was April 1...
Yes, he said he thought that the friends they were calling to watch the kids might think it was an April Fool's Day joke.
-
"...Bishop Giacomo Ballini, who runs the SSPX branch in Ireland, was heavily criticised by the Archbishop of Perth Timothy Costello after saying a mass in the city with a priest who had been removed from his position by the diocese..."
This part is unrelated as it refers to Fr Rowe of Australia who was removed for celebrating the Latin Mass without permission.
-
Yes, he said he thought that the friends they were calling to watch the kids might think it was an April Fool's Day joke.
Thanks for the comment...much appreciated.
-
This part is unrelated as it refers to Fr Rowe of Australia who was removed for celebrating the Latin Mass without permission.
Okay. Thank you. Good job finding REAL names in this investigation.
Removed...? Does the part about 'Defrocked' refer to FrFAKE? Kerry or even someone else?
Adios+
-
If you're looking for the crux of the matter:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg990586/#msg990586
-
https://youtu.be/_dQCGE4_72o
-
In this 2-minute clip, Brendan "Boogie woogie piano man" Kavanaugh argues that Trad priests are not real "official" priests, and shouldn't be treated as such by the British police, because they don't have a celebret.
He argues that a Traditional priest claiming to be a priest is the SAME THING as Caitlyn Jenner or Rachel Levine claiming to be a woman. He actually goes there! He brings up the fact that in the modern world, you can "identify" as anything.
This man is clearly not Trad Catholic -- at all.
I appreciate that he may have been wronged by "Fr. Fake" Fr. Moran (his kids had to watch both parents get arrested) but that's no reason to turn on the Traditional Movement. His attachment to Tradition was obviously skin deep at best, and now he's sloughed it off like a snake shedding his skin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okbEKgAuLvA
-
The irony in all of this is the piano guy complaining of clerics who aren’t part of the “mainstream church”, all the while, he’s trying to operate a private chapel. Why isn’t he attending church in his local diocese? If his local diocese approved of his chapel, they would send him a priest.
Typical indult mindset - I’m part of the mainstream church, except sometimes I’m not.
-
The irony in all of this is the piano guy complaining of clerics who aren’t part of the “mainstream church”, all the while, he’s trying to operate a private chapel. Why isn’t he attending church in his local diocese? If his local diocese approved of his chapel, they would send him a priest.
Typical indult mindset - I’m part of the mainstream church, except sometimes I’m not.
That's what I was thinking. If he wanted his children to get "credit" for attending a Catholic Mass, he'd be singing a completely different tune. Say, if the government offered tax credits for those attending regular church services (I know, not highly likely -- use your imagination) he'd be indignant that his priest(s) didn't qualify as Catholic priests. He'd be making many videos about it...
-
Finally an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/28/youtube-pianist-arrested-child-abuse-allegations-priest/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/28/youtube-pianist-arrested-child-abuse-allegations-priest/)
It's behind a paywall but you it's possible to read here if you pause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN4Pq8xhz38 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN4Pq8xhz38)
There is no logical reason that the resistance bishops would take on a a father fake, ignore advice from Mgr Vigano to avoid this fake, and then make a complaint to the police when the man who had the mass said at his house tried to find out what was going on. The Resistance has to be purer than the SSPX, who routinely ignore advice about bad priests and in some cases even promote them.
And how on earth did Brendan Kavanaugh get wind of the resistance, if all he wanted to was a latin mass to be said in his barn?
-
I don't see what that has to do with the fact that he got visited by the police for complaining about a rogue priest. If his money is ill-gotten, I'm sure the press would have a field day with him.
From his wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Kavanagh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Kavanagh)
(https://i.imgur.com/HfvazCt.png)
-
This man is 0% Traditional. Does he have a home chapel? Sure. Does he like him some smells & bells? Perhaps.
Is he Traditional Catholic in any sense of the word? No.
Wouldn't many modern (conciliar) Catholics, and even protestants, have a problem with some of the photos/videos he has posted on his Youtube?
It's a question of morality and decency. The fact that the modern world has no problem with nudity is TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT.
Catholic morality is completely against such immodesty and indecency. He mocks us for our Catholic morality.
The term "Traditional Catholic" has a certain objective definition, which this man does not merit.
Forget the "Trad" adjective -- what kind of "Catholic" is he?
That having been said, AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY that everything he says is false. I never suggested such a conclusion, because that wouldn't be logical. You can be a non-Trad, or a sorry excuse for a Catholic, and still utter the truth about something.
We on CathInfo are after the TRUTH and the truth alone.
He calls out CathInfo in his latest video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvK-oh-g9sU
-
His videos have millions of views each. He's making nice $.
In which case, he's a successful Youtuber appealing to the secular mainstream. Not a Trad Catholic, which is always a niche, unpopular market.
If being Trad Catholic were that lucrative, I'd be a millionaire. I'm running THE most popular Traditional Catholic forum after all.
But anyone who's been Trad longer than 2 years knows how ridiculous that idea is. Being Trad means opposing the modern world. You don't get rich opposing the modern world.
-
So let me get this straight --
"Do you renounce satan?"
We do renounce him.
"And all his works?"
We do renounce them.
"And all his pomps?"
We do renounce them.
So we, in rejecting satan *and all his works and allurements*, become a cult in Piano Man's eyes -- and the eyes of his fans.
So be it.
-
This man is 0% Traditional. Does he have a home chapel? Sure. Does he like him some smells & bells? Perhaps.
Is he Traditional Catholic in any sense of the word? No.
Wouldn't many modern (conciliar) Catholics, and even protestants, have a problem with some of the photos/videos he has posted on his Youtube?
It's a question of morality and decency. The fact that the modern world has no problem with nudity is TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT.
Catholic morality is completely against such immodesty and indecency. He mocks us for our Catholic morality.
The term "Traditional Catholic" has a certain objective definition, which this man does not merit.
Forget the "Trad" adjective -- what kind of "Catholic" is he?
That having been said, AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY that everything he says is false. I never suggested such a conclusion, because that wouldn't be logical. You can be a non-Trad, or a sorry excuse for a Catholic, and still utter the truth about something.
We on CathInfo are after the TRUTH and the truth alone.
He calls out CathInfo in his latest video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvK-oh-g9sU
LMAO
Not only is this retard doubling down on his immodest photos, he's being extremely disingenuous. I thought I made it clear that when posting those images I was mainly criticizing the TRAD CLERGY who associated with him. I wouldn't waste the time to "expose" some dude in the UK posing with immodestly dressed women if that's all it was, traditional clergy associating with him is what I have a problem with
And to be clear, in the picture of the woman with the crossed legs, the white paint is covering her bare "gluteal region", i.e., one of her "cheeks" was exposed. He had that picture taken, saw it, and made a conscious decision to post it online to his 2.5 million followers. A "traditional Catholic" shouldn't do that..which brings us back to my original point, why were traditional clergy associating with him?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvK-oh-g9sU
Check out the comments if you want a laugh
According to the YouTube comment lawyers our "dossier" meets the criteria for "defamation" and "harassment".
"Oi bruv! You got a loicense to post those public pictures?" :jester:
British people have been so beaten down it's unreal
-
Also, "supreme irony alert" --
His loyal cult members, I mean fans, let Brendan do ALL their thinking for them. Their brains are an open box, just waiting for the Dear Leader to pour in whatever they should believe or think.
Can you BE any more cult-like?
I'm serious. If he *wasn't* cult-like, he'd be appealing to reason, trying to convince them, and putting a link to the source so they can investigate for themselves. He would respect their rationality and individuality.
Can you imagine what would happen if one of them thought "differently" than the rest of the crowd? The comment would likely be deleted -- just like all 3 of my comments.
-
That having been said, AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY that everything he says is false. I never suggested such a conclusion, because that wouldn't be logical. You can be a non-Trad, or a sorry excuse for a Catholic, and still utter the truth about something.
Yeah, that's a similar strawman fallacy to what Dr. Sungenis uses on the FE debate, falsely alleging that FEs hold that NASA is lying about everything ... when we simply say that we don't know whether or not they're lying in any given situation, since they've been caught lying (by Sungenis' own admission).
Similarly, I don't recall on this thread where anyone says that nothing he says should be taken seriously or even that anything he said at all was false.
But it's important to understand context ... who's who, what are their motivations, etc. So, the pictures here as well as the point I made ... as I was less focused on the pictures, such as the fact that he spoke approvingly of the "official" Church and continues to make comments refering to groups who are not part of the "official" Church as "fringe" and ... in this latest rant, rerfers to CI as a "cult".
With regard to the pictures with immodesty in them, he dismisses the individual who covered the bare parts up as "prudish". OK, then, I guess Pope Pius XI was also a "prude", since the last directives we received from the Church about modesty state that it's "forbidden" for women to expose certain body parts ... and those were the ones that were covered up by the individual. You could claim prudishness ... or else you could claim, obedience to the teaching of the Holy Father Pope Pius XI who declared the exposure of said anatomy to be "forbidden".
See, if you're rejecting the modesty standards of Pius XI as "prudish", refering (approvingly) to the "official" Church while contrasting Traditional groups as "fringe" and even "cult"-ish ... that makes one question whether you're actually a TRADITIONAL Catholic. So, then if you're not a Traditional Catholic, why are you availing yourself of priests whom that "official" Church declares to be out of communion with it? Please do explain.
Even then, none of this necessarily invalidates any of the assertions you've made ... and I believe the consensus is that you have in fact told the truth. But are there some missing pieces. You wrote an e-mail. Bishop Morgan blocked you. Police were called. But you also copied the accused priest on the e-mail. So this could be a post hoc propter hoc fallacy, no? Bishop Morgan may have blocked you for other reasons, perhaps not even having read that last e-mail, and I suspect it was the accused "Father Fake" who called the police rather than Bishop Morgan ... so I think it's important that you clarify that rather than allowing that possible insinuation to remain. I think most of the issues we've had were against this one rogue poster who feigned broken English, provided no facts, no details, kept contradicting himself -- and clearly exhibited a certain malicious predisposition against the clergy of the so-called "Resistance" group with whom this priest is associated.
We had the same thing going on with a group called "Church Militant" that clearly had an animosity towards the Society of St. Pius X and exaggerated many points, often engaging in what had to be called slander ... but that did not necessarily disprove all of their information.
People here are trying to get to the truth ... and are attempting to ferret it out. If these Bishops have indeed knowingly and deliverately continued to work with this priests who had been convicted of various predations, that behavior would be utterly reprehensible. For "cult member" that I am, I have openly called for the indictment and sentencing of Bishop Bernard Fellay of SSPX (depite rejecting many of Church Militant's claims) as being guilty of aiding and abetting, and effectively being an accomplice in grave crimes against the youth.
At this point, we do need to hear from Bishops Morgan and Ballini.
So I believe that it's dishonest of you to smear us as a cult attempting to discredit the story. If we find out that these Bishops have actually engaged in this behavior, we will certainly call them out here, but at the same time the accused also have rights to have their side of the story heard, as two wrongs would not make a right if we were to ruin someone's good name without having all the facts ... and that's all we're trying to do here at this time, get all the facts.
-
I know it's easier to poke at Mr Smells-and-Bells Piano Man, but in his defense, he never claimed to be Trad. He pretty much said he was looking for any priest that would say the Latin Mass in his chapel. As WorldsAway said, it's on Bp Morgan to explain why he thought that was a good idea. At minimum, a "no filming allowed" would have been prudent if they were testing to see if the arrangement would be a good idea.
Kavanagh is really shooting himself in the foot here if his real goal is to expose Fr Fake. He's letting a few criticisms of himself bury the lead. Rather than waste his time defending the lady doing splits right in front of his face, why not get us a statement from the Diocese in London as to what they have to say about Father's time spent with them?
-
https://youtu.be/_dQCGE4_72o
While it's clear that someone is harassing him with these false reports ... do we know for sure it's "Father Fake" doing it? Could this possibly be unrelated (coincidence) from someone else who thougth they knew or heard something about a cafe and didn't realize it was a reference a child's cafe? Video states that "Father Fake" called it in ... but where's the evidence that he did. There are lots of busy-bodies out there who report everything they think they might know.
-
Also, "supreme irony alert" --
His loyal cult members, I mean fans, let Brendan do ALL their thinking for them. Their brains are an open box, just waiting for the Dear Leader to pour in whatever they should believe or think.
Can you BE any more cult-like?
I'm serious. If he *wasn't* cult-like, he'd be appealing to reason, trying to convince them, and putting a link to the source so they can investigate for themselves. He would respect their rationality and individuality.
Can you imagine what would happen if one of them thought "differently" than the rest of the crowd? The comment would certainly be deleted -- just like all 3 of my comments.
Even more irony: while his followers cry "libel", "defamation" and "harassment", Dr Boogie Woogie piano man has successfully "libeled" Cathinfo by dishonestly linking this site to "Fr Fake" (Kerry Moran). The hundreds of commenters (soon to be thousands?) have been led to believe that we are orchestrating a smear campaign against him on behalf of Moran and the bishop, while the exact opposite is true! All traditional Catholics should stay far away from Fr. Moran, and any bishop associating with him should be held accountable..no one here has said otherwise if what the Piano man is saying is true
-
I know it's easier to poke at Mr Smells-and-Bells Piano Man, but in his defense, he never claimed to be Trad. He pretty much said he was looking for any priest that would say the Latin Mass in his chapel. As WorldsAway said, it's on Bp Morgan to explain why he thought that was a good idea. At minimum, a "no filming allowed" would have been prudent if they were testing to see if the arrangement would be a good idea.
Kavanagh is really shooting himself in the foot here if his real goal is to expose Fr Fake. He's letting a few criticisms of himself bury the lead. Rather than waste his time defending the lady doing splits right in front of his face, why not get us a statement from the Diocese in London as to what they have to say about Father's time spent with them?
I never said he said he was a Trad, just wondering WHAT he was ... pointing out an inconsistency in someone who speaks approvingly of the official Church, and then characterizing other groups as "fringe' or even "cultish". If you approve of the official Church, which in turn disapproves of these "fringe" groups, which would be considered not even in "partial" union with the Conciliars, that's an inconsistency that needs to be accounted for. Is he, as you said, more a pure smells-and-bells guy who just wanted the Traditional asthetics, even as some movie producer might want to arrange them, or is there some other rationale ... and if you consider the group "finge" and "cultish", then why did you seek out any random fringe-group priest to offer the Mass for you?
None of this is, as I quite cleary explained, either here nor there regarding the veracity of what he reports ... but we can't rule it out either (as it COULD factor in). Point is to ferret out the truth.
But as he should see if he's monitoring the activity on this thread, NOBODY HERE is "circling the wagons" in a priori defense of Bishops Morgan and Ballini. We also don't want to shoot him in the face either ... and end up having been wrong. As Matthew said, we're trying to get to the truth .. wherever that may lead. And, right now, since it's basically what would qualify as "hearsay" (since we have no independent verification) ... we have no choice but to question possible motivations of the individual making the allegations. These are all types of questions that a police investigation would ask ... inquiring into motive, attempting to get corroborating evidence, etc -- before thinking you had enough evidence to take the case to a prosecutor or a grand jury.
-
But as he should see if he's monitoring the activity on this thread, NOBODY HERE is "circling the wagons" in a priori defense of Bishops Morgan and Ballini. We also don't want to shoot him in the face either ... and end up having been wrong.
So, for instance, we could end up finding out from Bishop Morgan: "I had received so many messages that I blocked it without even reading that one, and now that I've found out about this priest, I've cut ties with him, not having know about this beforehand."
I mean. Come on, people? Isn't this the closest thing to a "Resistance" site here? You mean that no one here who act like movers-and-shakers in the Resistance movement could contact Bishop Morgan at least via Bishop Zendejas to get a statement? If someone contacts him and he refuses to comment, then we'd have to say that people should avoid working with anyone associated with Bishop Morgan and that he and his group are to be avoided. Same goes for +Ballini. +Vigano states that +Ballini was informed about this priest and therefore knows ... and yet continues to work with him. If that letter from +Vigano can be verified as genuine, then +Ballini needs to go in the red-light bucket as well. Do we have a mini-lavender mafia going on here? What would +Morgan and +Ballini's motivations be?
-
Here is the Bishop of Martinique.
Anyone else's "Ray dar" going off?
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=David+Thomas+Daniel+Macaire%2c+O.P.+(7+Mar+2015+Appointed+-+)&form=HDRSC3&first=1
Boy, I wouldn't want to be a priest who served under him for a number of years...it would say a lot about me!
Right?
Question: If you were a seminarian/cleric/priest and showed up to Martinique and this was your Bishop, how many minutes/days/weeks would you stick around?
Yeah, on a -dar with a scale of 1 to 10, this guy registers a 50.
At the same time, though, if +Morgan and +Ballini are in fact blocking people, refusing to answer inquiries, and +Vigano's letter stating that +Ballini knew and continued to work with a convicted child predator ...
well, that leaves us little choice but to red-light +Morgan and +Ballini ...
and the next steps in the conclusion are rather unpleasant to consider, but I will go there.
So we would need statements from those two about whether they're knowingly working with and/or harboring known child predators ...
-
but at the same time the accused also have rights to have their side of the story heard, as two wrongs would not make a right if we were to ruin someone's good name without having all the facts ... and that's all we're trying to do here at this time, get all the facts.
Yes, exactly.
Fr. Kerry / Ciaran Moran wrote to Matthew several days ago. As I mentioned before, any accused is free to clear their name in this court of public opinion by explaining the facts, but so far he's chosen not to do so. He just wants the thread to be deleted.
Matthew can't share here what he wrote as he was asked that it be "confidential", but I do know what WASN'T included.
- no mention of accusations from the Diocese of Cardiff
- no mention of accusations from time spent in London
- nothing at all that is 3rd-party verifiable
-
Even more irony: while his followers cry "libel", "defamation" and "harassment", Dr Boogie Woogie piano man has successfully "libeled" Cathinfo by dishonestly linking this site to "Fr Fake" (Kerry Moran). The hundreds of commenters (soon to be thousands?) have been led to believe that we are orchestrating a smear campaign against him on behalf of Moran and the bishop, while the exact opposite is true! All traditional Catholics should stay far away from Fr. Moran, and any bishop associating with him should be held accountable..no one here has said otherwise if what the Piano man is saying is true
Very true. I don't understand the posters HERE who started criticizing the Piano Man. Totally irrelevant to the story. So now, this site is caught in the crosshairs, when we should've been innocent bystanders.
-
Very true. I don't understand the posters HERE who started criticizing the Piano Man. Totally irrelevant to the story. So now, this site is caught in the crosshairs, when we should've been innocent bystanders.
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/Z1ZxS_ufbiEAAAAC/kid-look.gif)
-
I never said he said he was a Trad, just wondering WHAT he was ... pointing out an inconsistency in someone who speaks approvingly of the official Church, and then characterizing other groups as "fringe' or even "cultish". If you approve of the official Church, which in turn disapproves of these "fringe" groups, which would be considered not even in "partial" union with the Conciliars, that's an inconsistency that needs to be accounted for. Is he, as you said, more a pure smells-and-bells guy who just wanted the Traditional asthetics, even as some movie producer might want to arrange them, or is there some other rationale ... and if you consider the group "finge" and "cultish", then why did you seek out any random fringe-group priest to offer the Mass for you?
None of this is, as I quite cleary explained, either here nor there regarding the veracity of what he reports ... but we can't rule it out either (as it COULD factor in). Point is to ferret out the truth.
But as he should see if he's monitoring the activity on this thread, NOBODY HERE is "circling the wagons" in a priori defense of Bishops Morgan and Ballini. We also don't want to shoot him in the face either ... and end up having been wrong. As Matthew said, we're trying to get to the truth .. wherever that may lead. And, right now, since it's basically what would qualify as "hearsay" (since we have no independent verification) ... we have no choice but to question possible motivations of the individual making the allegations. These are all types of questions that a police investigation would ask ... inquiring into motive, attempting to get corroborating evidence, etc -- before thinking you had enough evidence to take the case to a prosecutor or a grand jury.
Not to derail but what docuмents from the Church cover modesty? Also does it include men, i need this info.
-
Not to derail but what docuмents from the Church cover modesty? Also does it include men, i need this info.
Is this the docuмent?
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See) to the Bishops and Ordinaries under Pope Pius XI:
“In virtue of the Supreme Apostleship which he exercises in the universal Church, His Holiness, Pius XI, has never ceased to inculcate in word and writing that precept of St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:9-10): ‘Women also in decent apparel; adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety… as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works.’
“And on many occasions, the same Supreme Pontiff has reproved and sharply condemned the immodesty in dress which today is everywhere in vogue, even among women and girls who are Catholics; a practice which does grave injury to the crowning virtue and glory of women, and moreover unfortunately leads not merely to their temporal disadvantage, but, what is worse, to their eternal ruin and that of other souls.
“It is no wonder, then, that Bishops and other Ordinaries of places, as becomes ministers of Christ, have in their respective dioceses unanimously resisted in every way this licentious and shameless fashion, and in doing so have cheerfully and courageously borne the derision and ridicule sometimes directed at them by the ill-disposed.
“Accordingly, this Sacred Congregation for the maintenance of discipline among clergy and people, in the first place accords merited approval and praise to this vigilance and action on the part of the Bishops, and moreover earnestly exhorts them to continue in the purpose and undertaking they have so well begun, and to pursue them with even greater vigor, until this contagious disease be entirely banished from decent society.
“That this may be accomplished with greater ease and security, this Sacred Congregation, in pursuance of the orders of His Holiness, has determined upon the following regulations on the subject:
“I. Especially pastors and preachers, when they have the opportunity, must, according to those words of St. Paul (2 Tim. 4:2): ‘be instant, reprove, entreat, rebuke,’ to the end that women may wear clothes of beocming modesty, which may be an ornament and safeguard of virtue; and they must also warn parents not to permit their daughters to wear immodest clothes.
“II. Parents, mindful of their very grave obligation to provide especially for the moral and religious education of their children, must see to it with special care that their girls receive solid instruction in Christian doctrine from their earliest years; and they themselves must by word and example earnesily train them to a love of modesty and chastity. After the example of the Holy Family they must strive so to order and regulate the family that every member of it shall find at home a reason and inducement to love and to cherish modesty.
“III. Parents should also prevent their daughters from taking part in public drills and athletic contests. If the girls are obliged to take part in them, the parents must see to it that they wear a costume that is entirely modest, and must never permit them to appear in immodest dress.
“IV. Heads of girls’ schools and colleges must strive so to imbue the hearts of their girls with the love of modesty that they may be induced to dress modestly.
“V. They shall not admit to the schools or colleges girls who are given to immodest dress; and if any such have been admitted, they shall be dismissed unless they change their ways.
“VI. Nuns, in accordance with the Letter of 23 August 1928, of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, shall not admit to their colleges, schools, oratories, or amusement centers, nor allow to remain there any girls who do not observe Christian modesty in dress; and in the education of their charges they shall take special care to sow deeply in their hearts a love of chastity and Christian modesty.
“VII. Pious associations of women shall be established and fostered for the purpose of restraining by counsel, example, and activity, abuses regarding immodest dress, and of promoting purity of morals and modesty of dress.
“VIII. Women who wear immodest clothes should not be admitted to these associations; and those who have been admitted, if they afterward commit any fault in this regard and fail to amend after being warned, shall be expelled.
“IX. Girls and women who are immodestly dressed are to be refused Holy Communion and excluded from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, and in proper cases are even to be excluded from the church.
“X. On such feasts throughout the year as offer special opportunities for inculcating Christian modesty, especially on the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, pastors and priests who have charge of pious unions and Catholic associations should not fail to preach a timely sermon on the subject, in order to encourage women to cultivate Christian modesty in dress. On the feast of the Immaculate Conception, special prayers shall be recited every year in all cathedral and parish churches, and when it is possible there shall also be a timely exhortation by way of a solemn sermon to the people.
“XI. The diocesan Council of Vigilance, mentioned in the declaration of the Holy Office, 22 March 1918, shall at least once every year treat especially of the ways and means of providing effectively for modesty in women’s dress.
“XII. In order that this salutary action may proceed with greater efficacy and security, Bishops and other Ordinaries of places shall every third year, together with their report on religious instruction mentioned in the Motu proprio, Orbem Catholicuм of 29 June, 1923, also inform this Sacred Congregation upon the situation as regards women’s dress, and upon the measures that will have been taken in pursuance of this Instruction.”
-
It's very difficult to imagine that the Resistance would allow a priest of doubtful background, to join their ranks, and put them in public whilst ignoring warnings. ( From Mgr Vigano of all people ). This is yet one more aspect which sets the Resistance appart from the SSPX which does this all the time.
However, if Brendan Kavanagh was a traditionalist catholic, he would probably have been persuaded to keep his big mouth shut in order to preserve Tradition.
-
However, if Brendan Kavanagh was a traditionalist catholic, he would probably have been persuaded to keep his big mouth shut in order to preserve Tradition.
Great point. Yes, they would browbeat a Trad by claiming they're committing the grave sin of scandal and calumny (or at least detraction) against the accused by going public with it. That's one of their favorite tactics to keep their cover, and that might be one reason they like to infiltrate Trad groups, in addition to the appeal of Trad aesthetics to queer eye ... since what Trad wants to commit a grave sin or, if you don't buy their argument (few would not) to be effectively excommunicated in being deprived of the Sacraments?
-
Is this the docuмent?
Yes. So while one might claim "Prude!" ... the individual may also have been motivated by obedience to papal teaching, with the true motivations resting in the internal forum. So if it's wrong and sinful to dress this way, then does it not entail a participation in sin by spreading images of the same? I've asked that before when a Taylor Marshall would denounce public immodesty ... while posting pictures of it on his show, to get ratings, with a slight blur that nonetheless left absolutely nothing to the imagination, or when he showed video or audio of people blaspheming. To me, that's to commit the same sin you're denouncing.
-
Yes, exactly.
Fr. Kerry / Ciaran Moran wrote to Matthew several days ago. As I mentioned before, any accused is free to clear their name in this court of public opinion by explaining the facts, but so far he's chosen not to do so. He just wants the thread to be deleted.
Matthew can't share here what he wrote as he was asked that it be "confidential", but I do know what WASN'T included.
- no mention of accusations from the Diocese of Cardiff
- no mention of accusations from time spent in London
- nothing at all that is 3rd-party verifiable
Father Moran (any relation? ... speaking of "fake") ... has been found guilty in some formal proceedings, so I'm more concerned about Bishops Morgan and Ballini at this point.
-
https://youtu.be/pHXqjElyWwY
-
His pinned comment:
Where these INCEL losers hang out: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news /man-arrested-for-email/75/
He says CathInfo is "enabling a predator priest in their midst" and is "very happy to have child abusers in their midst"
-
https://youtu.be/pHXqjElyWwY
Dr K really needs to do his homework before he starts calling for investigations. :facepalm:
This website has no legal affiliation with the sspx-resistance; we're just a bunch of people who talk about what's going on in the world. We don't know what the UK clerics are doing, we don't talk to them and we don't do what they say.
-
Dr K really needs to do his homework before he starts calling for investigations. :facepalm:
This website has no legal affiliation with the sspx-resistance; we're just a bunch of people who talk about what's going on in the world. We don't know what the UK clerics are doing, we don't talk to them and we don't do what they say.
And he is again disingenuously claiming we are "attacking" him to defend Fr Moran and cover up child abuse. 99% of any "attacks" on him were not to discredit him, but questioning why the trad clergy were associating with him to begin with. However, if that indiscretion on the part of the trad clergy is what it takes to shed light on the Fr Moran situation..GOOD
-
His pinned comment:
He says CathInfo is "enabling a predator priest in their midst" and is "very happy to have child abusers in their midst"
We called him "the worst person in the world"? Source?
And we have "an S-E-X dossier on him?" Huh? We posted a few of his pictures that were a bit immodest -- but I wouldn't call it that!
Child abusers plural now! Fr. Moran (who is only accused) isn't even a member! How is he "in our midst"?
Sorry, bub, pedophilia is quite against the rules on CathInfo. Cause for an instant ban. Can he point to a single pedo on the forum? Not "in the world", but on the forum. I am unable to jail, ban, or otherwise punish people who aren't members of the forum.
Is this guy serious?
-
Dr K really needs to do his homework before he starts calling for investigations. :facepalm:
This website has no legal affiliation with the sspx-resistance; we're just a bunch of people who talk about what's going on in the world. We don't know what the UK clerics are doing, we don't talk to them and we don't do what they say.
Are we the Borg now? We're not a single hive mind. The Resistance "authorities" don't do what *we* say either. CathInfo is a virtual Coffee-and-Donuts hall. Nothing more, nothing less. We are a Free Speech coffee and donuts hall. And run by a layman with no power outside of the forum!
Has he even read this thread? At least 50% of it (before he made his first video attacking us, of course!) was about Fr. Moran/"Fr. Fake". What more does he want? We are mostly in other countries. We're not Sherlock Holmes, we're not the Police. We are just serious (Traditional) Catholics, who take morality more seriously than most modern Catholics. But we all have families and jobs. Let's face it: It is highly probable that we can't "get to the bottom of this" with all our power.
Why doesn't he make some phone calls and share the results of his investigation? Him attacking us is like attacking the owner/clientele of an Irish pub in England, because a questionable man he's trying to bring to justice happens to be Irish. Has he ever considered that most people in that Irish pub would like to see justice served as well? It's not like if one Irish man is guilty, all the Irish are guilty. There's this thing about not being God, where you can't control everything that happens. Sometimes you can't even control what your own body does, or what those in your own family do. Much less people on a different continent! Give me a break.
Are all the Brits socializing at the pub responsible for everything their government does? Let's keep the same standards of responsibility here.
-
After getting himself in trouble with the police, he now goes to attack people who are commenting on a situation he made public. If his feelings are hurt regarding the modesty question, he should examine his conscience without lashing out.
The SSPX Resistance is an idea or loose collective. The priest in question had red flags. These have been disclosed. It is a matter for the relevant authorities.
All involved have rights. The secular authorities simply see two people, rather than a priest and a traditionalist.
This musician now needs to calm down and listen to the advice of his lawyer and the legal authorities.
Vigilantism rarely ends well.
-
The "SSPX Resistance" is already a "loose network of independent bishops and priests" (so not much hierarchical control or authority there).
And he's confusing the SSPX Resistance with the membership of this forum, or the forum itself! Come on man, you're not stupid. What are you on about? What kind of game are you playing here?
-
At the risk of taking Piano Man seriously,
Does he REALLY THINK that we are OK with pedos? Especially in the priesthood?
I got news for him. I have 9 children myself. 6 of whom are under 15. More children than he has, if I'm not mistaken. Does he think I'd like any of my children to be scarred for life, damaged goods, turned into ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, thanks to the predations of some pedo? Since he isn't very good at logic or deep thinking, I'll help him out: NO, I AM EVERY BIT AS AGAINST THAT CRIME AS HE IS.
He complains about our stricter morality as regards nudity, etc. but then he's claiming to be "more moral" and "more good" than us about pedophilia. Pot, meet kettle.
-
Where these INCEL, parents' basement-dwelling, flat-earth believing, abuse-minimising losers hang out
Clearly Piano Man isn't being emotional AT ALL here... ::)
Plenty of us are married, so... not involuntary celebate.
I may not have a stone chapel like he has, or a six figure income from Youtube, but I do have a house with 5 acre property, so... not in my mom's basement.
Most CI members have normal homes -- not living with parents.
CI members hold a wide variety of views and opinions on just about everything. We are not cult members, who all adhere to the same opinions/views. We all think for ourselves. We don't all agree on anything, except maybe the Catholic Faith.
But he's wrong about ANY of us being tolerant of ANY level of child abuse or sɛҳuąƖ deviancy in the clergy. We are as intolerant of this as he COULD EVER PRETEND to be.
To be charitable, I will call out Piano Man for being very SUPERFICIAL and IGNORANT regarding his whole attack on CathInfo. He really needs to get a clue about what CathInfo is, and what the "SSPX Resistance" is. Because he is currently laboring under some SERIOUS ignorance.
-
Ugh!
Those photos... it really makes you wonder about that guy. That's a huge understatement though.
Isn't he married? Why is he flirting and cavorting with women like that? Those are single moment snapshots. What happened minutes before and after those snapshots? We're not talking about a man taking a simple photo standing next to a woman wearing typical modern attire, such as shorts or pants. No, nothing that banal.
Having a woman do the splits on your piano? Holding grossly immodestly dressed women close? That one woman has her leg overlapping on him, and look at how much paint had to be applied to make the image non-pornographic!
At least one of those photos is probably his wife. Maybe they all are his wife? But even if they were, it's grossly immodest and promoting indecency. It is not lawful for a Catholic to use sex (in ANY form, even subtle suggestion or titillation) to promote their brand, business, etc. We're talking about making people think about sex when they otherwise wouldn't be. That is not permitted by Catholic morality. There are NINE ways to commit sin, remember? One of them is to lead others into sin.
This man needs to look into Catholic morality. Does he even know what an occasion of sin is? Does he know that leading others into sin is ITSELF a sin?
This man wants to be a rock star, complete with the "sex" component of that lifestyle. That seems to be a bigger priority for him than being a good (Traditional) Catholic.
Oh… He’s an artist 🤷♂️
-
Piano Man does not have a low IQ. He can't be that stupid. He must have a reason for "picking a fight" with CathInfo for insane reasons, and sending people here.
Almost as if he's been forbidden to name the priest, but he knows the priest's name is found in this thread.
That is the only explanation for his inexplicable stupidity in confusing the "SSPX Resistance" with a random discussion forum.
Or nit-picking our criticism of his public photos, which are objectively violations of Catholic morality/decency.
He HAD to pick SOMETHING plausible, some excuse to pick a fight and send traffic over here.
If you have a better hypothesis, I'm all ears. But for now, that seems to be the most likely explanation.
-
Interesting comments...
(https://i.imgur.com/de2LhwQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oNdHFP5.png)
-
What is the Essex PX resistance, and why does piano man want them investigated? Sounds British.
-
It's shocking that he's been able to cover it up for so long, regarding Fr. Moran. How?
Martinique, where he was based, is French territory. It is to France what Puerto Rico or Hawaii is to the US. Having him convicted and tried and jailed in either France or Ireland wouldn't be hard.
-
I was told 'Dr K' had, for a while at least, played the organ at the SSPX chapel in North London and that is how he originally met Fr Paul Morgan.
As has been said above by Ladislaus there needs to be a clarifying statement by Bp Morgan confirming (a) appropriate safeguarding checks were made WRT Kelly/Ciaran Moran and (b) whether he was ordained sub-conditione and by whom. That would settle the issue.
-
Interesting comments...
(https://i.imgur.com/de2LhwQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oNdHFP5.png)
Ok, now it's all making sense. Piano guy was probably buddy-buddy with +Williamson. But now that +W is gone (+RIP) and Bishop Morgan is in charge, the dynamic of things changed. Piano guy's relationship with the Resistance changed once +Morgan took over, and he's not happy. Just like when a new CEO comes into a company, things are done differently. Happens all the time.
-
Ok, now it's all making sense. Piano guy was probably buddy-buddy with +Williamson. But now that +W is gone (+RIP) and Bishop Morgan is in charge, the dynamic of things changed. Piano guy's relationship with the Resistance changed once +Morgan took over, and he's not happy. Just like when a new CEO comes into a company, things are done differently. Happens all the time.
That theory doesn't seem to fit imo. Even if Piano Man decided he hated Bp Morgan, he wouldn't be able to simply fabricate this Fr. Moran situation.
-
I was told 'Dr K' had, for a while at least, played the organ at the SSPX chapel in North London and that is how he originally met Fr Paul Morgan.
As has been said above by Ladislaus there needs to be a clarifying statement by Bp Morgan confirming (a) appropriate safeguarding checks were made WRT Kelly/Ciaran Moran and (b) whether he was ordained sub-conditione and by whom. That would settle the issue.
I might even accept not making appropriate checks into Moran's background up front (not sure how easy that would be across different countries -- would he be listed by InterPol?) ... as at worst an act of negligence, and at best just inability to figure out how to check. If negligence, then it's serious, but not something that could not be corrected and taken for a "lesson learned".
What I'd be more concerned about is it could be established that Bishop Morgan knew about Moran's background but insisted on continue working with him despite the danger he might potentially pose ... and it would compound the problem if he is in fact, as has been alleged, blocking people just for demanding answers.
On a related matter, a purported letter from +Vigano indicates that this WAS the case for +Ballini, where +Ballini was informed but then refused to sever a working relationship with him. I would accept +Vigano's testimony that this is in fact the case ... just that the purported letter from +Vigano could easily have been fabricated, so we'd need to rule that out.
-
It's shocking that he's been able to cover it up for so long, regarding Fr. Moran. How?
Martinique, where he was based, is French territory. It is to France what Puerto Rico or Hawaii is to the US. Having him convicted and tried and jailed in either France or Ireland wouldn't be hard.
How long was it, though? From what I read Moran was put on trial / investigation in 2022 and finally convicted in June 2024.
-
Piano Man does not have a low IQ. He can't be that stupid. He must have a reason for "picking a fight" with CathInfo for insane reasons, and sending people here.
Almost as if he's been forbidden to name the priest, but he knows the priest's name is found in this thread.
Yeah, that might explain why he keeps saying "Father Fake", because evidently over there one can be arrested for writing an e-mail and possibly sued for defamation, i.e. people who named Moran here on CI would over there be arrested, prosecuted, or at least harassed for doing so.
-
Clearly Piano Man isn't being emotional AT ALL here... ::)
Plenty of us are married, so... not involuntary celebate.
I may not have a stone chapel like he has, or a six figure income from Youtube, but I do have a house with 5 acre property, so... not in my mom's basement.
Most CI members have normal homes -- not living with parents.
CI members hold a wide variety of views and opinions on just about everything. We are not cult members, who all adhere to the same opinions/views. We all think for ourselves. We don't all agree on anything, except maybe the Catholic Faith.
But he's wrong about ANY of us being tolerant of ANY level of child abuse or sɛҳuąƖ deviancy in the clergy. We are as intolerant of this as he COULD EVER PRETEND to be.
To be charitable, I will call out Piano Man for being very SUPERFICIAL and IGNORANT regarding his whole attack on CathInfo. He really needs to get a clue about what CathInfo is, and what the "SSPX Resistance" is. Because he is currently laboring under some SERIOUS ignorance.
Yeah, he appears to be snowflaking out here due to what began as very mild and subtle criticism, and then making strawmen like we're all attacking him in order to run cover for Bishop Morgan and to condone whatever malfeasance he may be guilty of. Sounds like his ego has been bruised, and now he's lashing out making false accusations, things that evidently he could be arrested for over there ... as per your debunking of his claims above here, Matthew.
I'd say Piano Dude is slandering us by claiming that we condone predation upon children, quite the contrary. He should grow up and realize that we're just trying to get the facts before dragging Bishop Morgan out, lynching him, or, over there, drawing and quartering him in the public square. Many people have been subjected to flase accusations, ruining their good name ... and we simply do not want to commit such a grave injustice.
I'm sure that every single poster here, to a person, would be outraged if in fact it were established that Bishop Morgan had been knowing working with a predator who has not only been credibly accused by even found guilty in formal proceedings. I'd be calling for his arrest, personally.
So this whole notion of circling the wagons to defend predation upon children ... that's completely false and slanderous.
If Piano Man keeps it up, we should consider bringing a defamation lawsuit against him, eh? ... since he has a huge audience.
Mr. Piano Man, please make a retraction of some of your false and defamatory accusations against us, or else you may be the subject of a defamation suit.
-
That theory doesn't seem to fit imo. Even if Piano Man decided he hated Bp Morgan, he wouldn't be able to simply fabricate this Fr. Moran situation.
True. But the opposite is also true...Even if Piano Man decided he hated Bp Morgan, would he completely do a 180 and hate the Resistance (and start trashing Tradition itself)?
Unless he is associating Fr Moran with Bp Morgan, as an example of the 'new resistance' (i.e. post +Williamson)?
Seems to me that Piano guy has 2 complaints: a) the new resistance leadership in england and b) this Fr Moran situation.
If this Fr Moran was an isolated incident, then I don't think Piano guy would be so quick to give up Traditionalism as a 'cult'. Unless he never truly 'bought in' to what the Resistance stood for in the first place.
...which highlights the problems that the new-sspx/resistance have, in as far as a 'ticking time bomb' of allowing more and more "not-really-Trads-but-I-like-the-latin-mass" people into their chapels. It's just a matter of time before these people betray/leave the new-sspx/resistance. These people were never truly Trads.
-
I don't think anyone says he's fabricating the "Fr. Moran situation". What we don't know and has only been promoted by little evidence, and mosly by insinuation ... is Bishop Morgan's role in the matter.
-
Also important to note that the email stated Fr Moran was found guilty of:
acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor
This is vague, and could mean anything from assaulting a pre pubescent child to fornicating with a girl 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old. The email references Canon law only when pronouncing his guilt.
So, is it not possible that while he was found guilty by the Church of "acts...with a minor", said minor was older than the age of consent..therefore no criminal trial by the state?
Basically, you cannot label him a "child abuser" or a "pedophile" based off of the information given
And to any visitors reading this..in case you get the wrong idea..if Fr Moran is only guilty of what I proposed above , he should still be blacklisted by Trad clergy and groups. I'm merely pointing out that no one has all the info required to call him a child abuser or pedophile
-
If you have a better hypothesis, I'm all ears. But for now, that seems to be the most likely explanation.
Well, one hypothesis, Matthew, is that you set this whole thing up precisely in order to get Piano Man to send traffic to CathInfo ... :laugh1: If so, well played.
-
Also important to note that the email stated Fr Moran was found guilty of:
This is vague, and could mean anything from assaulting a pre pubescent child to fornicating with a girl 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old. The email references Canon law only when pronouncing his guilt.
So, is it not possible that while he was found guilty by the Church of "acts...with a minor", said minor was older than the age of consent..therefore no criminal trial by the state?
Basically, you cannot label him a "child abuser" or a "pedophile" based off of the information given
And to any visitors reading this..in case you get the wrong idea..if Fr Moran is only guilty of what I proposed above , he should still be blacklisted by Trad clergy and groups. I'm merely pointing out that no one has all the info required to call him a child abuser or pedophile
Yeah, let's draw the line here. I don't care what he did in graphic detail. Even absent any details, he poses a threat. If he's capable of acting contrary to purity with minors (doesn't matter if they're "JUST" under 18) ... then he's a danger to children, since he can't control his impure impulses, even with youngsters. It may be she was "17" now, but the next one might be 15, 13, 10? This is good enough to definitely ban him from any "priestly ministry", as the Conciliars would phrase it. Let's not actually start even implicitly condoning this filth. Even the slightest hint of this and he needed to be jettisoned.
Archbishop Vigano stated that based on what he knew (and evidently he didn't now all the details either) ... that Moran should not be permitted to have anything to do with youngsters and that no one should be working with him. He's 100% spot on.
-
His pinned comment:
He says CathInfo is "enabling a predator priest in their midst" and is "very happy to have child abusers in their midst"
Mr. Piano man needs to retract and apologize for these comments, or I think we should collectively hire attorneys to bring a defamation suit against him. No one here is enabling predators or happy to have child abusers around ... not a one. He's transferred questions about his own motivations or the potential veracity of his allegations (against Bishop Morgan more than against Moran), due to his bruise ego, in to false slanderous allegations against the members of CathInfo.
This is like where if a juror does not vote guilty in a trial for someone who committed heinous crimes, he's falsely accused of condoning the crimes ... when the separate and distinct question is whether THIS INDIVIDUAL is guilty of the crimes, where if the juror did believe he was guilty, he would certainly have voted to convict -- but just because the crimes were heinous, that does not mean we should commit another wrong by falsely accusing an innocent (while also generally putting an end to the search for and investigation of the REAL perpetrator). Scores of innocent people have been falsely convicted of heinous crimes where the conviction was rooted in almost no evidence, but simply an emotional reaction against the atrocities themselves ... exonerated later after, say, DNA technology because available (they had saved some of the DNA) and proved definitively that he had not committed the crime, and someone else had.
In any case, I think we should consider a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Piano Man absent a retraction of these slanderous comments against us.
-
Yeah, let's draw the line here. I don't care what he did in graphic detail. Even absent any details, he poses a threat. If he's capable of acting contrary to purity with minors (doesn't matter if they're "JUST" under 18) ... then he's a danger to children, since he can't control his impure impulses, even with youngsters. It may be she was "17" now, but the next one might be 15, 13, 10? This is good enough to definitely ban him from any "priestly ministry", as the Conciliars would phrase it. Let's not actually start even implicitly condoning this filth. Even the slightest hint of this and he needed to be jettisoned.
Archbishop Vigano stated that based on what he knew (and evidently he didn't now all the details either) ... that Moran should not be permitted to have anything to do with youngsters and that no one should be working with him. He's 100% spot on.
I completely agree, but Piano Man has labeled him a child abuser, said we are defending and enabling child abusers, and his followers are now saying the same and that we are defending pedophiles...all while there is zero concrete evidence about Fr. Moran
-
Update from the UK. I have been told that a comment to this effect keeps getting taken down from BK's YouTube account --
Brendan K is keeping quiet and covering up that he was good friends with Bishop Richard Williamson to such an extent that the Bishop married him. There is a picture from the SSPX District magazine of about 12 or 13 years ago showing the Kavanaghs next to the Bishop, but I dont know how to include the jpeg image. There was also a picture of them with the Bishop after he had married them in another issue of that magazine,
It is believed that Brendan also introduced Bishop Williamson to David Irving, the historian. Brendan was invited to a party at David Iriving's house and took the Bishop as his guest. This shows how friendly they were and the Bishop was one of their first clerical visitors to see their chapel barn.
-
Update from the UK. I have been told that a comment to this effect keeps getting taken down from BK's YouTube account --
Brendan K is keeping quiet and covering up that he was good friends with Bishop Richard Williamson to such an extent that the Bishop married him. There is a picture from the SSPX District magazine of about 12 or 13 years ago showing the Kavanaghs next to the Bishop, but I dont know how to include the jpeg image. There was also a picture of them with the Bishop after he had married them in another issue of that magazine,
It is believed that Brendan also introduced Bishop Williamson to David Irving, the historian. Brendan was invited to a party at David Iriving's house and took the Bishop as his guest. This shows how friendly they were and the Bishop was one of their first clerical visitors to see their chapel barn.
Thanks for the info. You can add images using the "attachments and other options" below the comment box. You could also upload to a site like imgur and post the link here.
It seems like Piano man is the "old acquaintance" mentioned in The Recusant's article on Fr. Moran who sent and received an email from the diocese in Martinique (this is supported by what he said in his original "arrest context" video)..which also means he was in direct contact with +Vigano, because The Recusant mentions that same "old acquaintance" as being the one who contacted +Vigano. He seems to have a lot of connections in traddieland..
-
The picture with Bishop Williamson
-
The picture with Bishop Williamson
Ah. This is starting to get interesting. He's just removed the pinned post with a link to this thread
-
I'm just going to leave a second photo here, it's Bp. Morgan (as a bishop already) celebrating Mass at Dr. Ks chapel. It's from the German Wikipedia article "Paul Morgan (priest)"
(https://i.imgur.com/LTeXTPO.jpeg)
Also @Truthy, if you attach an image via "attachment", non-logged in users (i.e. strangers who are now reading this thread) can't see it - so here is the image again for everybody:
(https://i.imgur.com/WpJisHm.png)
I also have slightly more info on this situation (not the conclusion to this drama, just some non-public emails), but I'm going to wait until Friday to post it, as I want to give them enough time to respond (or not respond). I also want to see how the situation will unfold until then without my input - but if the person in question refuses to respond to me, I'll have to post it.
-
The plot thickens...
-
I completely agree, but Piano Man has labeled him a child abuser, said we are defending and enabling child abusers, and his followers are now saying the same and that we are defending pedophiles...all while there is zero concrete evidence about Fr. Moran
We do know that Father Moran had been convicted in formal proceedings of some kind, and just because we haven't seen the evidence, that doesn't mean there isn't any. I'm sure there is, even if we haven't seen it ... and since it appears to come from credible sources (the investigation, from +Vigano) ... there's no reason to deny its existence. He'd be in the category of "credibly accused". No one need prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations are true as if in a criminal trial in order to sever any working relationship with him. +Vigano indicated that the nature of the charges suggested that he be kept away from working with children ... and that really suffices. Nobody has the authority to prosecute him, nor does Moran have some right to work with any particular Traditional organization. Bishop Morgan could stop working with him just because he doesn't like the smell of his aftershave.
-
We do know that Father Moran had been convicted in formal proceedings of some kind, and just because we haven't seen the evidence, that doesn't mean there isn't any. I'm sure there is, even if we haven't seen it ... and since it appears to come from credible sources (the investigation, from +Vigano) ... there's no reason to deny its existence. He'd be in the category of "credibly accused". No one need prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations are true as if in a criminal trial in order to sever any working relationship with him. +Vigano indicated that the nature of the charges suggested that he be kept away from working with children ... and that really suffices. Nobody has the authority to prosecute him, nor does Moran have some right to work with any particular Traditional organization. Bishop Morgan could stop working with him just because he doesn't like the smell of his aftershave.
Of course, I think the emails already provided are sufficient evidence for the Resistance to cut all ties with him and to publicly warn the faithful about him..strangely, neither of those things have happened AFAIK. My point is that I do not think it is proper to label him a "child abuser" or "pedophile priest" at this point because all we know is that he was found guilty of "acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor"..that could mean fornication with someone a year or less under the age of majority, or it could mean something much worse. Regardless, anything that would fall under that description would be a heinous sin for a cleric to commit and he should be totally avoided
-
Of course, I think the emails already provided are sufficient evidence for the Resistance to cut all ties with him and to publicly warn the faithful about him..strangely, neither of those things have happened AFAIK. My point is that I do not think it is proper to label him a "child abuser" or "pedophile priest" at this point because all we know is that he was found guilty of "acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor"..that could mean fornication with someone a year or less under the age of majority, or it could mean something much worse. Regardless, anything that would fall under that description would be a heinous sin for a cleric to commit and he should be totally avoided
Yeah, but you're just splitting hairs here ... as those terms apply at least legally, and that suffices. I think everyone is aware that 18 tends to be the cutoff age for transitioning from child to adult, and that those terms apply from a legal standpoint even if you want to argue that it's not true from a "natural" one. I find that you're spending way too much time definding this guy from semantic "impropriety" when at the end of the day it doesn't matter, and the guy is a threat. Not sure why you're so zealous about defefending him from being labeled a "child abuser" or "pedophile" ... when those terms are applicable according to legal standards and therefore not inappropriate nor in any way slanderous.
-
More edifying content coming from the Resistance-haters over there ...
https://x.com/fionapettit71/status/1904990166554407400
-
The video accusing CathInfo of complicity has been made 'private' now.
-
I'm just going to leave a second photo here, it's Bp. Morgan (as a bishop already) celebrating Mass at Dr. Ks chapel. It's from the German Wikipedia article "Paul Morgan (priest)"
(https://i.imgur.com/LTeXTPO.jpeg)
Also @Truthy, if you attach an image via "attachment", non-logged in users (i.e. strangers who are now reading this thread) can't see it - so here is the image again for everybody:
(https://i.imgur.com/WpJisHm.png)
I also have slightly more info on this situation (not the conclusion to this drama, just some non-public emails), but I'm going to wait until Friday to post it, as I want to give them enough time to respond (or not respond). I also want to see how the situation will unfold until then without my input - but if the person in question refuses to respond to me, I'll have to post it.
Thank you Baldwin and Truthy for sharing this information.
Prayers for Dr. K, Bishop Morgan and everyone involved. :pray:
-
Yeah, but you're just splitting hairs here ... as those terms apply at least legally, and that suffices. I think everyone is aware that 18 tends to be the cutoff age for transitioning from child to adult, and that those terms apply from a legal standpoint even if you want to argue that it's not true from a "natural" one. I find that you're spending way too much time definding this guy from semantic "impropriety" when at the end of the day it doesn't matter, and the guy is a threat. Not sure why you're so zealous about defefending him from being labeled a "child abuser" or "pedophile" ... when those terms are applicable according to legal standards and therefore not inappropriate nor in any way slanderous.
I'm "zealously defending" someone whom you believe can be appropriately labeled a "pedophile"? I resent what's being insinuated!
What we know:
Fr. Moran was found guilty of "acts contrary to the sixth commandments with a minor".
Those are Canon law terms. We know nothing about what he was found guilty of by the state, or if he was. No one has provided any evidence of him being tried and convicted by the state.
I am opposed to immediately labeling him a "child abuser" or "pedophile" because that is not necessarily the case. There is insufficient evidence to label him either of those things, because they mean specific things, and we do not have specifics. For instance, IF the "minor" involved was 17 and the "act" was fornication then neither of those terms would be appropriate. In that case they are the dialect of the enemy. Calling a 17 year old a "child" is the dialect of the enemy. It falsely removes culpability from those already past the age of reason. Do you not think it sinister that the majority of people have been led to believe that a, say, 15 year old lacks the mental faculties necessary to "consent" to certain sins? That is a, literally, damnable notion and I pity the youth it has been instilled in.
AGAIN, because this is apparently necessary, I am NOT defending ANYTHING Fr Moran has done. There is enough evidence to label him a threat, to avoid him and to make others aware of him
-
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.
-
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.
One of them allegedly vouched for Fr. Moran, and had him come to Kavanaugh's chapel in the first place. According to Kavanaugh. And there's no reason he would lie about that.
-
I am astounded that so many trads accept as fact and gospel the so-called proceedings from an inquiry in the Conciliar Church. They reject most everything from the Conciliarists but are happy to believe these things without question. How utterly bizarre! Think of the criticism aimed at Bishop Williamson for accepting the apparitions of Our Lady at Akita because they were authorised by an Concilar Bishop. Perhaps the salaciousness of the accusations help these trads not question them, because after all we all love a bit of scandal?
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."
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.
-
As for the Kavanaghs, it is interesting to note that they emailed Martinique and Abp Vigano, days after the funeral of Bishop Williamson, which took place on 26th February, to which they were not invited because of their increasingly erratic and disturbing behaviour. Fr Moran visited their barn chapel in September 2024, so why did they do nothing for almost six months but still keep up the video of Fr Moran's visit after all these 'red flags' ? (Oh, wait a minute, it means more YouTube viewings which is what they live for). Did they ultimately just pursue this harassment because they were upset at not being invited to Bishop Williamson's funeral? Why have they been so vicious and vindictive towards Bishop Morgan who has only been kindness itself to them?
May God have mercy on them for what they have done.
-
I am astounded that so many trads accept as fact and gospel the so-called proceedings from an inquiry in the Conciliar Church.
Not sure how it works in Britain, but in the US, any charge of 'guilt' is handed down by the civil courts, not the Church itself. So when the 'British V2 authorities' said that Fr Moran was found guilty, I just assumed this came from a court/judge decision. If Fr Moran's "guilt" came only from the V2 church, then you are totally correct and this charge is dubious.
As for the Kavanaghs, it is interesting to note that they emailed Martinique and Abp Vigano, days after the funeral of Bishop Williamson, which took place on 26th February, to which they were not invited because of their increasingly erratic and disturbing behaviour. Fr Moran visited their barn chapel in September 2024, so why did they do nothing for almost six months but still keep up the video of Fr Moran's visit after all these 'red flags' ?
More good info and backstory.
(Oh, wait a minute, it means more YouTube viewings which is what they live for). Did they ultimately just pursue this harassment because they were upset at not being invited to Bishop Williamson's funeral? Why have they been so vicious and vindictive towards Bishop Morgan who has only been kindness itself to them?
Yes, it seems that the change from +W to +Morgan caused them "issues", which they are now lashing out about.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
If the accusor was an adult, then maybe this was a fake "me too" accusation, to get Fr Moran to leave his diocese?
-
Reply to Matthew --
You say they are highly unlikely and rare, but what evidence do you have or that? Priests are being cancelled every day and the easiest and quickest excuse available is inappropriate behaviour with minors, even when this doesn’t involve the police or civil authorities. It is a fact that Fr. M has never been questioned by the police let alone arrested or convicted. His totally clear police checks from the UK, Ireland and Martinique (France) show that.
This affair doesn’t give them a black eye. There has been absolutely no mention of this at all in Martinique. Nothing on the website of the diocese announcing the ‘laicisation’ or anything else. Yet they have done this with regard to the arrest of another priest there. Strange.
I don’t think Fr. Moran was in Martinique for 10 years. He arrived in 2016 and left in 2019 after making a complaint to the Holy See about the behaviour of the Archbishop. Fr. M is also a canon lawyer.
Remember that Fr. M was not a priest when in Martinique. He was ordained after leaving. There is a docuмent which he was asked to sign in 2017 agreeing to various things, including not publicly celebrating the Traditional Mass, and celebrating the new Mass in French with all the horrors when asked to - even though when INVITED to the diocese it was under the condition that he would never have to say the new Mass ever.
The charges against Fr. M are very vague. He still doesn’t know exactly what they are, even after having been found guilty of committing them.
Matthew notes 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.” Yet this is the exact same extrajudicial penal process which Fr. M was faced with, only in his case he was not given the right to defend himself, nor to have a canonical legal advocate, nor to have the process conducted in a language he properly understood. He has never seen the acts of the case and has only been given the barest of information about it, after he was declared guilty by a judge who had himself been recused for lacking impartiality 18 months before.
The Holy See is in possession of 5 sworn affidavits from young men and the mother of 13 children which testify under oath that the archbishop of Martinique approached them and asked them to fabricate allegations against Fr. M. This was all in the years immediately BEFORE retaliatory accusations were made against Fr. M and 3 years after he had left Martinique and the Novus Ordo Church and refused requests by the bishop for him to voluntarily seek laicisation as he was no longer working in the diocese and was ‘absent without leave’. The ‘vos estis’ complaint was made to the Vatican in 2020 and 2021. The ‘allegations’ against Fr. M only surfaced in July 2022.
After being declared ‘guilty’ in an administrative process and refused the right to appeal, Fr. M was given the barest of details of what he was accused of. Yet, there is evidence in the form of aeroplane tickets and passport stamps, as well as bank statements, which show that he was thousands of miles away in Europe at the time.
People are talking of previous allegations taking place in Cardiff and London. Fr. M was never a cleric for either of those dioceses and if there was even the slightest evidence of issues or problems of this sort; is it conceivable in this day and age (2016), that he would have been invited to go to Martinique by the bishop? As Matthew pointed out, “The Conciliar Church has enough scandal in this department. They don't need to give themselves additional black eyes.”
But of course Matthew knows all this because he has seen a letter from Fr. M’s advocate which details the entire thing. Fr. M has also volunteered on several occasions to speak with Matthew and provide any and all docuмentary evidence for him to see. He simply doesn’t want to post the entire thing online whilst canonical proceedings are still underway in Rome AGAINST the bishop of Martinique. Yet Matthew has not responded to those several requests and continues to ply this out, helping destroy the reputation and good name of a priest. For what purpose exactly? Bishops Williamson, Ballini and Morgan have all seen this evidence and are obviously satisfied with it.
(https://i.imgur.com/wlt3bK4.jpeg)
The Archbishop of Martinique, the accuser and judge of Fr Moran.
(https://i.imgur.com/EAP5kfr.jpeg)
Cardinal Tucho who is the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, who allowed the archbishop of Martinique to continue, who ignored the evidence and refused to even consider my appeal even though it was clear that I wasn’t in the hemisphere at the time.
More on Cardinal Tucho - https://onepeterfive.com/more-erotic-musings-from-vatican-head-of-doctrine/
-
But of course Matthew knows all this because he has seen a letter from Fr. M’s advocate which details the entire thing. Fr. M has also volunteered on several occasions to speak with Matthew and provide any and all docuмentary evidence for him to see. He simply doesn’t want to post the entire thing online whilst canonical proceedings are still underway in Rome AGAINST the bishop of Martinique. Yet Matthew has not responded to those several requests and continues to ply this out, helping destroy the reputation and good name of a priest. For what purpose exactly? Bishops Williamson, Ballini and Morgan have all seen this evidence and are obviously satisfied with it.
Wow, you know an awful lot about Fr. Moran and the fine details of Fr. Moran's correspondence with Matthew for a random third party ;)
That photo, for example, I couldn't find online, not even in the Internet Archive -- but Fr. Moran sent it to me several days ago.
Right, Father?
Anyhow, I told you ...er, Fr. Moran many times to simply come on here and post the evidence. Do you think that's going to bother me in the least, if Fr. Moran turns out to be innocent? I'd be thrilled! There's enough evil in the world, and in the Church. You think I'm dying for "just a bit more" evil in the clergy? That would be insane. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH evil in the world to satisfy anyone's appetite for evil. I don't need to make up even more.
As I said above, for every one person who "has it out for" someone, for some mysterious reason, there are 1 million or 1 billion individuals who are impartial to the same "victim". It's simply not NORMAL to randomly target someone for no good reason. Why would I, or anyone else here, have the slightest inclination against you rather than for you? The only issue is the FACTS and the TRUTH, which are not automatically infused into anyone's brain.
-
Reply to Matthew --
You say they are highly unlikely and rare, but what evidence do you have or that? Priests are being cancelled every day and the easiest and quickest excuse available is inappropriate behaviour with minors, even when this doesn’t involve the police or civil authorities.
I don't believe this. Strongly disagree with you on this point. 99.9999% of dioceses would just say "You're disobedient. Get out" and cast them out for being Traditional. They wouldn't make up lewd charges against the priest. Saying they're disobedient and anti-Novus Ordo is one thing. But even Novus Ordo Catholic doctrine says it's pretty sinful to lie and destroy someone's reputation. In their mind, they think someone like +ABL is bad for being disobedient, etc. so that's a bit different. But everyone knows slander, lies, etc. is clearly evil.
So no, I don't think that's standard operating procedure. 99.9999% of "cancelled priests" don't leave the Conciliar Church with damage to their reputation, such that they have difficulty working with kids, have to register with a sex offender registry, etc.
The idea that such slander against "Traditional" priests is par for the course, is simply not true.
-
How about this question:
If you, a normal, non-perverted, red-blooded man studying for the priesthood showed up, and a fruit loop like the man you posted was your bishop -- how many minutes would you stick around?
I'd do a 360 and walk away. So would most men.
As Ladislaus said, on a Ghei-dar scale of 1 to 10, he's about a 50. So why did you ...er, Fr. Moran, stick around for so long? Even 3 years would be crazy.
And why were you so determined to stay in Martinique of all places? You're neither black, nor French-speaking. Let's just say the reason is far from obvious, to the average person. That's a long way from Ireland.
-
The video accusing CathInfo of complicity has been made 'private' now.
Yes, perhaps my suggestions that we were being slandered had some effect, since I know that they're extremely touchy about that over there. Of course, they also sued Alex Jones for a billion dollars in the United States to put the same kind of chilling effect on people.
-
One of them allegedly vouched for Fr. Moran, and had him come to Kavanaugh's chapel in the first place. According to Kavanaugh. And there's no reason he would lie about that.
As far as +Ballini, there's a letter purportedly from +Vigano stating that +Ballini had been warned about this priest with the advice of breaking all contact with him, but +Vigano lamented that +Ballini had not done so. +Vigano states that he and Bishop Williamson had been fooled by him. How? ... we don't know. Perhaps one of them conditionally ordained the man. It's not clear, but that would be my guess, except that wouldn't require the involvement of both +Williason and +Vigano.
As for +Morgan, as reported by Mr. Kavanaugh, as you said, he had reportedly vouched for Moran initially. After Mr. K sent an e-mail both to Moran ("Father Fake") and to +Morgan, after that +Morgan blocked Mr. K (somehow ... not sure how or on what platform). Question is whether the suggestion that he blocked Mr. K BECAUSE of the complaints about Moran and in order to condone / aid / abet Moran's predations ... that's not been established. Could have been coincidence, or just due to the volume of messages .. we don't know, since AFAIK neither of the bishops has spoken up yet.
-
Still no answers here...June 25, 2025 AD.
https://newsfangled.co.uk/brendan-kavanagh-arrest/
EXCERPT
"...
What Did He Actually Do?
The details remain frustratingly vague—Kavanagh himself has said very little beyond sharing home security footage of the arrest and stating the charges were dropped due to ‘lack of evidence.’...
Whatever the specifics, what we do know is damning: police arrived at a man’s home and arrested him and his partner for expressing something online that wasn’t even hate speech.
Is This the New Face of British Law Enforcement?
...
The concept of lawfare—using legal tools to silence, harass or punish individuals for political or social views—is no longer the stuff of conspiracy theory. It’s happening in real time. Brendan Kavanagh’s arrest, despite no criminal conviction and no substantiated evidence, fits an emerging pattern....
"...Kavanagh has indicated he may challenge the circuмstances surrounding his arrest further. Whether through legal appeal or public exposure, it’s clear the story isn’t over—and the warning still stands. Kavanagh himself has said he won’t be backing down—and nor should he...
*****
Talk about legal action is like a warning...yes, chilling effect on those still scratching their skulls asking " what exactly is going on??!"
Re the bishop whom he had contacted - I thought DOcK said, in his arrest video, that.( a bishop?), ' known him for 15 years'...or something of the sort.
Wouldn't that exclude +B.?
-
I am astounded that so many trads accept as fact and gospel the so-called proceedings from an inquiry in the Conciliar Church. They reject most everything from the Conciliarists but are happy to believe these things without question. How utterly bizarre! Think of the criticism aimed at Bishop Williamson for accepting the apparitions of Our Lady at Akita because they were authorised by an Concilar Bishop. Perhaps the salaciousness of the accusations help these trads not question them, because after all we all love a bit of scandal?
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."
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.
Sorry, but that's a load of nonsense. While it's possible that there's some hyper-sensitivity to charges of predation, if anything they too have tended to cover it up. Yeah, yeah ... every other predator has claimed that they were just being slandered and persecuted due to being too Trad. As far as believing the Conciliars ... this isn't a matter of doctrine or theology, but an investigation. So, the investigation into Moran appears to have taken a very long time (nearly 2 years), so we have nothing better to go on. So the response is to let Moran run children's Summer camps and have access to children because the charges MAY be "trumped up" ... based simply on your contempt for the Conciliar Church?
Speaking of your contempt for the Conciliars, Moran was no Traditionalist but was in a Novus Ordo diocese, where the Conciliars would have been persecuting him for being too Traditional. Then he goes through a canonical trial, is found guilty ... and then magically turns Trad right after that, whereas he had no prior inclinations toward joining the Resistance.
As for the criminal record ... there can be many reasons that things did not go to criminal courts, assuming that you're telling the truth, where a standard for an ecclesiastical investigation need not be the same as for a criminal conviction. Perhaps the charges are based on personal accusations that can't be proven, perhaps there was some statute of limitations in play, etc. etc. You will note that the standards for the Church to remove an individual from ministry need not rise to the level of being able to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, as might be required for a conviction under criminal law, but the accused need merely be credibly accused. Benefit of the doubt rightly goes to any potential victims. One might ascertain the credibility of the allegations by interviewing the individual, ascertaining whether there may be ulterior motives, whether there's any corroborating information etc. etc. -- not enough to convict in a court of law, but enough to say that there's plenty of smoke here, so instead of saying that despite the smoke you have no PROOF there's a fire, and thereby potentially risking lives, if you see the smoke, you evaculate the building to save lives, since there's a reasonable liklihood of a fire.
Moran has no right to any kind of public ministry that's being violated by his being prohibitied from it, much less does he have a right to be in working cooperation with any given other individual, such as a Resistance bishop.
So take this nonsense elsewhere ... for all we know you're a troll trying to make it appears as though Traditional Catholics try to cover up for predators, as Mr. Kavanaugh had asserted.
-
"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.
... all great points. AND, as I pointed out, the standards for simply removing someone from public ministry are not the same as required for a criminal conviction or even criminal charges. Moran has no right to public ministry and to be around children. Period. Nor any right to work with a Resistance bishop. They could send him packing just because they consider him, oh, too liberal or something. He could be unfit for various moral, psychological, or intellectual reasons ... or for any number of reasons that aren ot against the law even. Too many predators have gotten away with the old tactic of claiming slanderous persectuion on account of being "too Trad".
In a criminal court, there's a standard of having to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. Where it comes to ministry in the Church, credible accusations suffice so that one would not put other potential victims at risk just because there isn't enough evidence to convict in a court of law ... because the potential consequences are so high. As I mentioned with the smoke scenario, if there's smoke, you don't wait to evaculate the building until you have proof that there's actually a fire. You evacuate because if you don't and there is a fire, the consequences are incredibly serious, and you take preventative actions just because there's a reasonable possibility there is a fire. Now, you don't evacuate 10 times a day just because there MIGHT be a fire and you're paranoid. I guess this is simlar to negative vs. positive doubt vs. moral certainty. Postiive Doubt based on reasonable and credible factors suffices to remove from ministry, even if something approaching moral certainty would be required for a criminal conviction.
-
As for the Kavanaghs, it is interesting to note that they emailed Martinique and Abp Vigano, days after the funeral of Bishop Williamson, which took place on 26th February, to which they were not invited because of their increasingly erratic and disturbing behaviour. Fr Moran visited their barn chapel in September 2024, so why did they do nothing for almost six months but still keep up the video of Fr Moran's visit after all these 'red flags' ? (Oh, wait a minute, it means more YouTube viewings which is what they live for). Did they ultimately just pursue this harassment because they were upset at not being invited to Bishop Williamson's funeral? Why have they been so vicious and vindictive towards Bishop Morgan who has only been kindness itself to them?
May God have mercy on them for what they have done.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.akc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FGerman-Shorthaired-Pointer-hunting.jpg&f=1&ipt=2affad82d2e22ab950214a506af6d643aa4507e124a885270d1f5cd1f3bebd84)
“Good boy!”
“I think you’ve got Kavanagh’s scent.”
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.akc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FGerman-Shorthaired-Pointer-hunting.jpg&f=1&ipt=2affad82d2e22ab950214a506af6d643aa4507e124a885270d1f5cd1f3bebd84)
“Good boy!”
“I think you’ve got Kavanagh’s scent.”
I disagree. This "Truthy" character appears to be doing exactly what Mr. Kavanaugh suggested, engaging in a smear campaign against him in order to cover up for Bishop Morgan. Until Bishop Morgan comes forward with a public statement, there's no reason to believe that there's nothing to the charges, with his silence being utterly inexplicable. You'll notice a death of facts, and only speculation, as evidenced by the repeated use of question marks.
-
Wouldn't that exclude +B.?
I understand the Bishop is Bp Morgan. When he was Fr Morgan and GB District Superior that is when DrK met him first.
When Bp Ballini was in the UK he served the north of England and Scotland.
-
[float=left max=100%]Posted by: Ladislaus
« on: Yesterday at 06:21:29 PM » I disagree. This "Truthy" character appears to be doing exactly what Mr. Kavanaugh suggested, engaging in a smear campaign against him in order to cover up for Bishop Morgan. Until Bishop Morgan comes forward with a public statement, there's no reason to believe that there's nothing to the charges, with his silence being utterly inexplicable. You'll notice a death of facts, and only speculation, as evidenced by the repeated use of question marks.[/float]
You seem to ignore Kavanagh’s public persona.
He’s a flaming narcissist, a showboat who thrives on attention.
Like you are to CI, he is to youtube. Only he lives off his monetized social media.
Very easy to argue that Brendan’s “rustic chapel” and his attachment to the TLM are stage props for his entertainment business.
He is an embarrassment to the Catholic remnant, and a classic self loving Brit… that represents another scandal to Bp. Williamson’s flock.
-
You seem to ignore Kavanagh’s public persona.
He’s a flaming narcissist, a showboat who thrives on attention.
It's irrelevant to the question at hand. Whatever his motives are, either what he's saying is true, or partly true ... or else he's simply lying.
I'm not really concerned with this matter about judging Mr. Kavanaugh and whether he's an "embarrassment to the Catholic remnant".
Similarly, I had serious problems with Voris and Niles. But that didn't make all of their allegations untrue. I'm not going to defend +Fellay's coverups of and complicity in the predations of Fr. Abbet, for instance ... just because I had serious problems with both Voris and Niles. Even with those two, I regularly called out their motivations, and dismissed SOME of their claims as slander, fueld by the motivations. But that does not equate to exonerating +Fellay.
Capiche?
I don't understand why some people struggle so mightily with making basic logical distinctions. Both could be true ... what you assert about Mr. Kavanaugh's defects of character AND that there's something inappropriate (or worse) going on with Bishops Morgan/Ballini and this Moran character.
That's yet another example of false dichotomy and inability to make distinctions, where all you guys can thin in is binary (maybe you should apply to be computers), where it's constantly all or nothing, this side or that side (which is how you guys get constantly manipulated by the Hegelian dialected) ... when, as St. Augustine already taught all those years ago ... that generally veritas in media stat ... "truth stands in the middle".
Unless we attribute abject lying to Mr. Kavanaugh, which I don't have any reason to do ... I find that his allegations need to be taken seriously and that Bishops Morgan and Ballini need to respond to them. Again, perhaps that truth is in the middle, where there's some truth to what Mr. Kavanaugh says, but then his perspective has imposed some interpretations on the raw facts that may or may not be valid, etc. But we can't even begin to discern the truth unless we hear the other side of the story. That's true of every fight, such as between children, when you have to go in and referee. You get one side of the story that's invariably slanted toward their perspective. Then you have to interrogate the other part for their side of the story, and finally apply some Solomon-esque thinking to discern the truth (it usually comes out due to inconsistencies, etc. -- and then you can reconcile the discrepancies if you take into account each individual's perspective).
Problem is that without +Morgan / +Ballini's side the of the story, we have nothing to work with in attempting to discern the truth of the matter ... and I am absolutely not prepared to dismiss Mr. Kavanaugh's allegations simply because some Trads don't "like his style". Nor am I prepared to judge Mr. Kavanaugh's character based on some superficial perception created by a couple of Youtube videos. I know nothing about him, and this is a context in which "Whom am I to judge?" most certainly applies. I can't judge a man's soul or character from a few seconds of Youtube videos, especially when some were from a good time ago. I also saw a few videos where he appeared to be praying devoutly in front of the Blessed Sacrament, so there is that on the other side. We all have faults, and I'm not going to point out the splinter in his eye when I have my own beams to deal with. I am not prepared to call anyone an abject / malicious liar without hard proof ... but one does find regularly that a perspective can be overlaid onto the facts that can cause a distortion depending upon how you're viewing things.
-
Looks like he deleted the "sex dossier" video as well
Only the thumbnail was archived for the deleted video where he explicitly mentioned CathInfo:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250701142849/https://www.youtube.com/embed/pHXqjElyWwY
https://youtu. be/pHXqjElyWwY
Dead links to "dossier" video:
youtube.com/watch?v=EvK-oh-g9sU
https://youtu. be/EvK-oh-g9sU
Did anyone save the videos?
-
It's good that he deleted it. Perhaps he got cold feet after he went after CathInfo, accusing us of covering up for predators, being basement-dwelling INCELs and all that ... at which point I posted that perhaps we should consider a lawsuit for defamation since it's all untrue. Maybe he read that. I'm glad he pulled it down.
-
Very easy to argue that Brendan’s “rustic chapel” and his attachment to the TLM are stage props for his entertainment business.
I don’t think this is true. I’ve been following Piano Guy for years, almost a decade. He only recently started to even talk about Catholicism. Prior to the last 2 years, his videos were simply him going around to airports/public places and playing piano for strangers. There’s was no need for these videos to be religious, nor did he even talk much at all. He just played piano. Even now, most of his videos are just music.
-
Apparently I was too subtle.
Fr. Moran has joined the chat.
Is that clear enough?
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991461/#msg991461
-
Question for Truthy/Fr. Moran:
How closely did you work with the Bishop of Martinique? Was he some distant bishop you never had to deal with, were you his personal secretary, or what?
-
Apparently I was too subtle.
Fr. Moran has joined the chat.
Is that clear enough?
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991461/#msg991461
Yeah, I suspected it out of the gate ... given that he had way too much information about whether or not Fr. Moran had a formal criminal record, etc. ... as in fact one of the complaints is that no one had performed a background check on him.
-
Matthew,
I can categorically state that I am not Fr Moran.
I know him and have been in contact with him and know the history thoroughly. But I am not him. I have received various communications from him and have posted parts of them on this forum. I am also very aware of the vetting process here in the UK and have seen the docuмentation relating to Fr. Moran and can confirm that it is all valid and in order. All that I have said in all of my posts is true and verifiable.
-
Matthew,
I can categorically state that I am not Fr Moran.
I know him and have been in contact with him and know the history thoroughly. But I am not him. I have received various communications from him and have posted parts of them on this forum. I am also very aware of the vetting process here in the UK and have seen the docuмentation relating to Fr. Moran and can confirm that it is all valid and in order. All that I have said in all of my posts is true and verifiable.
Does he literally BCC you in his private correspondence, for example his recent e-mails to me?
Because you seem to have access to Fr. Moran's e-mails, as well as a photo that I've not seen except for a Fr. Moran email.
How are you connected to Fr. Moran? You're a lot more than a supporter or fan.
-
Reply to Matthew --
....
who ignored the evidence and refused to even consider my appeal even though it was clear that I wasn’t in the hemisphere at the time.
sounds like someone has their wires crossed
-
Matthew,
No. I do not have access to Fr. Moran’s emails but he has read to me parts of the email he sent you. As for the photograph, I think this is what you are referring to:
https://www.facebook.com/share/1NNs9kf45F/?mibextid=wwXIfr
It can be found on the Facebook account of the official diocesan photographer, seemingly.
MaterDominici,
As I told you. I posted some of what Fr. Moran had sent to me.
It does seem that you are all absolutely determined that Fr. Moran is guilty of something and refuse any and all explanation presented to you. Ladislaus is quick to not accuse Brendan Kavanagh of being a liar, yet is very happy to accuse “this Moran character” of being a predator, a potential paedophile and whatever else.
Clearly you have no interest in learning the truth in this matter, so I will not be posting again.
-
Let’s get back to the topic at hand. Assuming Fr Moran is innocent of all charges,
a). Why was there an incident at Piano Man’s chapel?
b). What was the incident? Fr Moran was on the property then left. The Piano Man was perturbed enough to investigate.
c). Who called the police on Piano Man, after he started his investigation?
This incident is the crux of the matter.
-
Clearly you have no interest in learning the truth in this matter, so I will not be posting again.
You haven't given us anything but your side of the story. The closest thing to evidence you've provided is dates showing that Kavanagh delayed his investigation of Fr. Moran for unknown reasons.
You say your friend is a canon lawyer, so surely he's smart enough to understand the difference between telling a story and actually providing evidence to support the claims.
Why not start with something easy? Who ordained Fr. Moran on what date and please include a photo.
-
Bishops Williamson, Ballini and Morgan have all seen this evidence and are obviously satisfied with it.
The problem of this thread was never whether Fr. Moran is innocent or not. The problem is the silence of Bp. Morgan and, to a lesser extent, Bp. Ballini and their absolutely garbage management of the situation.
If Fr. Moran truly was innocent, a simple explanation from Bp. Morgan to Kavanaugh "Yeah we know about these reports but these charges are bogus, the Vatican didn't even specify what he was accused of and we have bank statements here here and here proving that he was not in the area where the charges are supposed to have happened". Boom, done, crisis avoided in five minutes in a simple e-mail. But that's not what happened.
Instead:
- Kavanaugh asks Bp. Morgan what's going on
- Bp. Morgan hangs up on Kavanaugh, blocks him (???????)
- Kavanaugh gets angry and wants answers
- Bp. Morgan (or someone else?) then calls the police for "harassment" (Morgan knew Kavanaugh for 10+ years)
- Kavanaugh gets arrested by 3 police cars
- Then Kavanaughs barn gets falsely reported as a cafe (by whom?)
Add to that Viganós warning that Fr. Moran is extremely deceptive (which has a lot more weight than whatever the Vatican is saying) and the reality is that, unless we have some public statement from Bishop Morgan about his weird behaviour and why the arrest warrant was filed (against an old friend of the Resistance), we still have an unsolved case. Whether the explanation given by @Truthy about the innocence of Fr. Moran can be trusted is another question. We first need to figure out why Bp. Morgan is behaving so erratic.
The SSPX Resistance now does have a black eye because of the bishops inaction. Not only did 400.000+ people watch Kavanaughs video of his arrest - giving any non-diocesan priest a "cult" affiliation - the German Wikipedia page now also lists it as a scandal. Not because of Fr. Moran, guilty or not. But because of Bp. Morgan going "missing in action" for 2 months, blocking people, filing police reports and refusing to say absolutely anything about the situation. What good is a "bishop" if he deserts the field when you need him? What on earth is going on inside of Bp. Morgans head?
Even if Fr. Moran turns out to be innocent after all, the problem is more the strange secrecy by Bp. Morgan.
-
Part of Brendan’s musical education was under the direction of a h0Ɩ0h0αx survivor. (Look it up).
(https://i.imgur.com/ScA0Sjz.jpeg)
But his piano schtick with the sunglasses and provocative antics represent Brit entertainment obviously inspired by… the “Queen” of England herself:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.508P4_BVuu4o-JqKRE2KuQHaE8%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=5b96bd5f0e9cdbac4fb63c1f6e25fa0c321fcff24204449cc8378639ff27e6b1&ipo=images)
-
Something is unjust here...Matthew is required to keep those emails from KMoran CONFIDENTIAL, but then KMoran divulges some emails to Truthy. Hmmm.?
Double standard here. Red flag I~
The Trad world is STILL wading in confusion.. doldrum. + M, anything to add... please?
-
It does seem that you are all absolutely determined that Fr. Moran is guilty of something and refuse any and all explanation presented to you. Ladislaus is quick to not accuse Brendan Kavanagh of being a liar, yet is very happy to accuse “this Moran character” of being a predator, a potential paedophile and whatever else.
Did you read what I even wrote? I said that given that there were formal proceedings that appeared to be serious and take some time, we must conclude that Father Moran was credibly accused, not certainly guilty, not even guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ... but that there's a different standard for removing someone from ministry, i.e. just because he MIGHT reasonably be a predator, since no one has a right to public ministry, and in particular if +Morgan and/or +Ballini are working with him, there's no requirement for them to continue working with him. They could stop working with him because they don't like the smell of his aftershave. Reasonable positive doubt suffices to require that we take reasonable precautious against exposing potential victims to him. I used the example of smoke and fire. If I'm sitting in a school building and I see smoke coming out of a classroom, I pull the fire alarm to evacuate the school. Sure, I have no proof that there's any danger. Smoke could be a burrito that someone put in the microwave too long ... and never posed a threat. But one cannot demand proof of fire before evacuating the students, since if you're wrong, the consequences are just too high, yet the cost of the inconveniece of having to evacuate (even if needlessliy) rather low.
So what you're claiming here is that if we don't accept YOUR version of the story and your characterization that these charges were trumped up in some persecution against Fr. Moran, that there's nothing to them ... and based on the word of some anonymous poster who clearly has an agenda, do not give access to Moran, that we're committing some grave injustice to Moran. Since you refuse to identify yourself, for all we know you're an accomplice in some operation to vicitimize children. But, yeah, OK, since anonymous poster guy here says so, I'm going to send my child into a room with Moran for some "spiritual direction" unsupervised, right? I'll be right over to send my young daughter to a Summer youth camp directed by Father Moran ... just because that Truthy guy who showed up out of nowhere on CathInfo and who admits to be fairly close with Fr. Moran said so right there on CathInfo. If he's innocent, he can retire from public ministry at least for a time, and continue offering Mass, perhaps soliciting stipends for Masses ... while attempting to clear his name by some definitive evidence. Similarly, we evacuate the students due to the smoke, and then can have a competent fire marshall go in to ascertain the truth of the matter. But you don't leave them in there due to lack of definitive proof that there's a threat.
Unfortunately, many innocents have been victimized after some predator's claims of persecution were accepted at face value. Bishop Williamson would know that now, since he dismissed the credible accusations against Urrutigoity due to his claims of being persecuted and slandered simply becaue he was "against sedevacantism" -- and the consequences were tragic, resulting in other victims. That was a very grave misjudgment on his part (and I respect Bishop Williamson highly). I would give the benefit of the doubt that a priest would not commit grave calumny (rising to the level of mortal sin) simply to smear someone just for being opposed to your position on the crisis. I've had arguments with many Traditional Catholics, but I would never dream of just making up charges of grave unnatural vice against them even if I consider them to be in grave error, not for a second. In fact, very few people would do that, much less a priest like Father Morello.
See, here's the thing ... the priesthood is given not to Moran because he's a great guy and deserves to be a priest and is worthy of it, just so lay people can be forced to bow their heads in reverence and call him father, simply because Moran couldn't get promoted to shift manager at a fast food restaurant. No, the priesthood is given only for the good of souls. So the fact that Moran selfishly insists on imposing himself on others means that the motivations are not selfless as they should be for a priest.
If I were a priest, even if I were to become the subject of allegations that I KNOW to be false, I would not resent people who suspected me ... since ... how would they even know for sure one way or the other? Why would they expose their children to me? I wouldn't take it the least bit personally. And, if I suffered this trial, I would offer it up to God for my sins, as well as for the souls of even the accusers. Not a few saintly priests were subjected to slander ... and were sanctified by their humble acceptance of the trial, and obeyed their bishop to withdraw from public ministry until their names were cleared. If I did feel that I had to show up at some venue because the faithful there had no access to Sacraments, I would insist upon never being alone with anyone or create any situation that might make them uncomfortable. I would even announce from the pulpit ... "I have been accused of []. Before God, with Him as my witness, I can affirm that I am not guilty of these charges. Nevertheless, since you have no reason to take my word for it, and I am here to serve you ... I will be sure to avoid any situations that might make anyone uncomfortable or that might lead to any suspicion ... until, God willing, my name has been cleared. Until then, please keep your distance. I will be hearing confessions over here where both I and the penitent are visible at all times, and then after Mass will immediately go directly to my vehicle and drive off without any further contact. I'm sorry you have to go through this, but the important thing is not my personal reputation but that you should have access to the Sacraments. Even if I were the most evil spawn of Satan on the earth, the Sacraments you receive are valid, and you receive graces from the ex opere operato and not because of me ... so that's the important thing now."
Any priest who's credibly accused would withdraw voluntarily from public ministry and/or take obvious public precautions to prevent any discomfort or suspicions ... if it were needed for him to care for souls who had no other viable alternatives.
-
The problem of this thread was never whether Fr. Moran is innocent or not. The problem is the silence of Bp. Morgan and, to a lesser extent, Bp. Ballini and their absolutely garbage management of the situation.
If Fr. Moran truly was innocent, a simple explanation from Bp. Morgan to Kavanaugh "Yeah we know about these reports but these charges are bogus, the Vatican didn't even specify what he was accused of and we have bank statements here here and here proving that he was not in the area where the charges are supposed to have happened". Boom, done, crisis avoided in five minutes in a simple e-mail. But that's not what happened.
Instead:
- Kavanaugh asks Bp. Morgan what's going on
- Bp. Morgan hangs up on Kavanaugh, blocks him (???????)
No one knows what Kavanagh actually said to the Bishop? Was he threatening?
- Kavanaugh gets angry and wants answers.
- Bp. Morgan (or someone else?) then calls the police for "harassment" (Morgan knew Kavanaugh for 10+ years)
- Kavanaugh gets arrested by 3 police cars.
- Then Kavanaughs barn gets falsely reported as a cafe (by whom?).
Kavanagh is an aggressive, high profile media figure who has had other encounters with the cops. Check his Chinese tourist encounter in 2024.
Add to that Viganós warning that Fr. Moran is extremely deceptive (which has a lot more weight than whatever the Vatican is saying)
That’s a gas!
The 8th highest ranked Conciliar prelate under the Francis regime, who knows all about Opus judei, inside newChurch, but can’t talk about it… says Fr. Moran is extremely deceptive :laugh1:
and the reality is that, unless we have some public statement from Bishop Morgan about his weird behaviour and why the arrest warrant was filed (against an old friend of the Resistance), we still have an unsolved case. Whether the explanation given by @Truthy about the innocence of Fr. Moran can be trusted is another question. We first need to figure out why Bp. Morgan is behaving so erratic.
The SSPX Resistance now does have a black eye because of the bishops inaction.
Members of this forum repeatedly complained about the secret Consecrations of the +W era bishops and their transparency, but were only scoffed at.
Not only did 400.000+ people watch Kavanaughs video of his arrest -
Duh…
And Brendan’s $ocial media accounts are soaring. :laugh1:
giving any non-diocesan priest a "cult" affiliation - the German Wikipedia page now also lists it as a scandal. Not because of Fr. Moran, guilty or not.
And the likelihood that this was a stunt designed to discredit the Resistance is high.
If Kavanagh was a Catholic gentleman with common sense and a little prudence, he never would have gone viral with this in his social media.
But because of Bp. Morgan going "missing in action" for 2 months, blocking people, filing police reports and refusing to say absolutely anything about the situation. What good is a "bishop" if he deserts the field when you need him? What on earth is going on inside of Bp. Morgans head?
Even if Fr. Moran turns out to be innocent after all, the problem is more the strange secrecy by Bp. Morgan.
Which begs the question, how long will the SSPX Resistance Bishops wait after +W’s death to call an internal Congress?
They’re clearly disorganized.
-
If Kavanagh was a Catholic gentleman with common sense and a little prudence, he never would have gone viral with this in his social media.
False. If I found out that some priest had been credibly accused, wrote to (whom I considered to be) his superior, then got blocked by that man, who then gave me the silent treatment, I too would shout the new from the rooftops, lest I too in keeping silent become an enabler of crimes against children.
Bishop Morgan appears to have had the opportunity to prevent this by responding as a Catholic bishop should.
What options did Mr. Kavanaugh have ... if it's true that he was being stonewalled and given the silent treatment?
I would also get the word out.
Honestly, it's attitudes like yours that give legitimate fuel for the accusation that some Trads will circle the wagons around even creidbly-accused child predators and their accomplices rather than do the right thing, despite a hit to the reputation of various Trads.
-
No one knows what Kavanagh actually said to the Bishop? Was he threatening?
+Morgan has had every opportunity to respond. He could have come out immediately and stated: "I blocked Mr. Kavanaugh because he was harassing me and making at-least-veiled threats.", and perhaps published some snippest of communication he received to back it up (at that point he'd have the right to publicly disclose contents of those e-mails).
So, the longer +Morgan and +Ballini refuse to comment and continue to stonewall, the more guilty they look. Shameful.
-
Can 'Truthy', or anyone else please confirm who ordained Fr/Mr Moran? No one wants to accuse an innocent man but the lack of transparency is not helping.
As I wrote in the thread above a simple statement clarifying the situation from Bp Morgan would resolve the matter. Why is Bp Morgan so reticent to resolve this issue?
-
That’s a gas!
The 8th highest ranked Conciliar prelate under the Francis regime, who knows all about Opus judei, inside newChurch, but can’t talk about it… says Fr. Moran is extremely deceptive (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif)
Matthew, ban this piece of trash here for making all Traditional Catholics look bad. This despicable piece of work now declares +Vigano to be a liar simply because of his past of having had a high rank in the Conciliar Church. He's a complete scuмbag, both for giving fuel to the impression that Trads to defend predators in the intersts of preserving their anti-Conciliar cult (as evidenced by this comment here and taken together with the prior one) as well as for the slander itself.
This guy needs to be banned for calumny and slander against +Vigano. This has been going on here for a long time unchecked, where various moronic buffoons were accusing +Vigano of everything from Luciferian Sun Worshipper to Freemason because he had used an Italian rendering of "Amen" that can be found in pre-Vatican II Missals.
I've about had enough of it, and the longer you let this go on unabated, Matthew, the more you too become an accomplice in calumny and slander. That appears to be par for the course, so I wonder where some get the impression that we're a ridiculous cult who aid, abet, and condone pretty much anything and everything, including calumny and slander ... to to defend this Traddie movement that stinks more and more every day of being rotten to the core.
Until this guy gets banned ... I'm done here.
-
Can 'Truthy', or anyone else please confirm who ordained Fr/Mr Moran? No one wants to accuse an innocent man but the lack of transparency is not helping.
As I wrote in the thread above a simple statement clarifying the situation from Bp Morgan would resolve the matter. Why is Bp Morgan so reticent to resolve this issue?
Why does it even matter? He was evidently ordained in the Conciliar Church? I suspect that either +Vigano or +Williamson then conditionally ordained him. +Vigano repented of at least having worked with him, if not conditionally ordaining him, having said he and +Williamson had been deceived.
And, yes, you are correct. Longer +Morgan goes without any comment, the more guilty he looks. There's absolutely no excuse for him to chime in with at least a brief sentence or two stating his role in the matter ... unless there's some truth to the allegations.
-
Why does it even matter? He was evidently ordained in the Conciliar Church? I suspect that either +Vigano or +Williamson then conditionally ordained him. +Vigano repented of at least having worked with him, if not conditionally ordaining him, having said he and +Williamson had been deceived.
And, yes, you are correct. Longer +Morgan goes without any comment, the more guilty he looks. There's absolutely no excuse for him to chime in with at least a brief sentence or two stating his role in the matter ... unless there's some truth to the allegations
I do not disagree with you. All I am saying is clarity and tranparency would be beneficial considering the times we live in.
I actually do think it matters if Fr/Mr Moran is a valid priest or not. I heard a rumour, unsubstansiated, that he had been 'ordained' using the revised 1961 Pontificale by a 'bishop' consecrated in the new rite.
-
He was evidently ordained in the Conciliar Church? I suspect that either +Vigano or +Williamson then conditionally ordained him. +Vigano repented of at least having worked with him, if not conditionally ordaining him, having said he and +Williamson had been deceived.
He was not a priest in the Conciliar Church, only a deacon.
-
Reputation is important for a Christian. One cannot do as one wants. We set an example. We are expressly told to always show good conduct. Not just by the Apostles but by Our Lord himself -
1 Peter 2:12
Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
Matthew 5:16
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
Perhaps given the celebrity status of the gentleman in question, he reacted in this way especially since he may have found the relevant authorities slow in acting. This might establish why the course of events took place.
In which case, to avoid situations like this, people should be as up-front as possible. This is to avoid scandal. And indeed, a scandal has occurred here. And for every action there is a reaction.
So if this was triggered by delay and obfuscation, then little wonder the police got involved. The status of the "priest" should be clarified as soon as possible.
-
Matthew, ban this piece of trash here for making all Traditional Catholics look bad. This despicable piece of work now declares +Vigano to be a liar simply because of his past of having had a high rank in the Conciliar Church. He's a complete scuмbag, both for giving fuel to the impression that Trads to defend predators in the intersts of preserving their anti-Conciliar cult (as evidenced by this comment here and taken together with the prior one) as well as for the slander itself.
This guy needs to be banned for calumny and slander against +Vigano. This has been going on here for a long time unchecked, where various moronic buffoons were accusing +Vigano of everything from Luciferian Sun Worshipper to Freemason because he had used an Italian rendering of "Amen" that can be found in pre-Vatican II Missals.
I've about had enough of it, and the longer you let this go on unabated, Matthew, the more you too become an accomplice in calumny and slander. That appears to be par for the course, so I wonder where some get the impression that we're a ridiculous cult who aid, abet, and condone pretty much anything and everything, including calumny and slander ... to to defend this Traddie movement that stinks more and more every day of being rotten to the core.
Until this guy gets banned ... I'm done here.
There’s nothing untrue about my statement on Vigano.
But notice how Lads… the guy with the admitted CIA connection is first to lead topic misdirections?
:popcorn:
-
Until this guy gets banned ... I'm done here.
How many times in the past (12) months have you made this same threat… and reneged on it?
-
How many times in the past (12) months have you made this same threat… and reneged on it?
Sounds like an enforceable contract, no?
-
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695
The above article may answer a number questions raised here on this forum with regards to the back ground of Mr. Kerry Michael Moran ('Fr. Fake' as Dr. Kavanagh calls him). Respectfully I address him as Mr. given that he was officially laicized as a deacon and as far I understand, can only be canonically reinstated to the clerical state with a special dispensation from the Holy See. This of course brings into question the validly of his alleged ordination, especially as he was laicised only last year (June 2024) and yet presented himself as an ordained pries less than a year later. Again, I use the word alleged, because it is shrouded in secrecy; no one knows who ordained him, when he was ordained, or whether he is simply claiming to be ordained. Perhaps, and I am speculating, this is what His Grace Archbishop Vigano was alluding to when he said himself and His Lordship Bishop Williamson had been deceived. What is certain is that this Mr. Moran has a long recorded history of being moved from place to place due to inappropriate behavior with minors. And as a Ladislaus outlined earlier, an innocent man, who cared about the faithful, would never insert himself into the homes of young children until he name about been formerly cleared.
-
I also have slightly more info on this situation (not the conclusion to this drama, just some non-public emails), but I'm going to wait until Friday to post it, as I want to give them enough time to respond (or not respond). I also want to see how the situation will unfold until then without my input - but if the person in question refuses to respond to me, I'll have to post it.
Any update?
-
Any update?
Well I still tried to wait for a response, but nothing. I also don't want to unnecessarily reveal anything private without necessity, but I guess the necessity is given now.
Basically, my involvement is this: Over the course of 3 - 4 months, I built a site for Resistance apologetics which includes a full map of all Resistance priests / Mass locations: https://dubia.cc/ (https://dubia.cc/) - not just to convert other Catholics, but also to refute Protestants, Orthodox, Atheists, etc. Because ever so often, you'd get asked "are you in a cult?", "science disproves God", etc. A friend of mine (also Resistance, with a YouTube channel where he does debates) wrote about 300 - 400 articles, but they're not well-sourced. We are working to get them signed off by a priest (Fr. Lang, who is still with the SSPX but resisted in 2012), so that I don't accidentally make theological errors. Basically "TradCatholic Answers".
On the website I also maintain a "Where are we? (https://dubia.cc/en/resistance)" map of all Resistance priests and Mass locations. Naturally, I have vested interested in keeping a list of "clean" Resistance priests (i.e. priests who are validly ordained, not shady, etc.). I go around handing people business cards with a link to that site if they ask what I believe and "where to go to Mass":
(https://i.imgur.com/pGEAFyo.png)
It's a very effective way of evangelization. But I cannot go around handing people these cards while listing potentially shady priests. I already took Fr. Abraham and Fr. Peignot off my list and I won't list their Mass locations, for good reason.
So this is why, SEVEN WEEKS AGO, I wrote to Broadstairs, after I noticed the "decrevi" Video that started it all (has been deleted in the meantime). Because of the "decrevi" Video, someone added the scandal to Wikipedia. So I wrote to Broadstairs on 20th of May:
[...] What I will remark is that the British group really needs to clear up the „dodgy priest“ allegations, because the German Wikipedia page now slanders the Resistance as hiding pedos. Basically the story is this: +Morgan handed out a phone number of a priest who was kicked out by the diocese based on „child molestation rumors“ and then worked with the Resistance. Then he „behaved weirdly“ at one Mass and the host, „Dr. K“, phoned +Morgan for clarification and +Morgan blocked him, which confused „Dr. K“. Then Dr. K made a YT video alarming people and now we have a PR disaster (thanks to some Irish YouTuber). And then some German leftists put this on the SSPX Resistance Wikipedia page.
Now I say: it was reported to the police, the police didn’t find anything so far, so a simple statement by +Morgan „the priest hasn’t been officially convicted, so we still work with him“ would be enough, just to get leftists off our back. If you could forward this to +Morgan, that’d be great. Fr. Hewko also defended +Morgan here, so Fr. Hewko is not in principle sectarian. Forgive him his faults. [...]
The response came back on the same day:
[...] Over here, the Resistance (although I dont like that name) is doing well with regular Masses and reasonable numbers. I must say the 'dodgy priests' allegations are complete nonsense. In fact with the recent claims, the couple who started the rumours a few months ago were arrested by the Police and charged with criminal harassment. Clearly the Police believed the allegations were nonsense. As BpW often said the Church ways are different from the ways of the world and so statements are not put out against these defamations and lies. The Church has never operated like that. All the so-called resistants know the truth.
So, Broadstairs knew that there were arrests going on, even back in May (now we have July, seven weeks later). This does not necessarily mean that Broadstairs created the harrassment campaign, but it strongly supports that theory.
At the time I didn't realize that by "the couple" they meant Dr. K and his wife, otherwise I would have been more suspicious of their same-day response. I assumed it was some third-party couple running around creating rumors about this priest. So I thought "okay, there's some couple running around making rumors about a priest, let the police clear it up". So I took their response at face value and didn't investigate further.
Now however, it turned out that the "harassment police arrest" was over simple E-Mails, which obviously makes me more suspicious of Broadstairs actions and "defense", since a full-blown police report is a severe escalation. So, two days after the video that started this thread (on 27th of June), I wrote another E-Mail, since I remembered that the Broadstairs group clearly knows about the situation, asking them to clarify what their perspective is - what do they know?
I also asked them for rough Mass locations in the meantime (so I could put them on dubia, just the rough locations, so I can list the contact information for Mass coordination together with the location), to which I just got the response:
It is probably best to have me down for the whole of England and if anyone is visiting England they can use this email address which I check every day. Bishop Ballini is in charge of Ireland and I think he would want the same security measures because we have suffered so much at the hands of the media, even Bishop Williamson's funeral got two bad newspaper articles.
So, they don't want to hand out Mass locations because of journalists. All I can say is that so far, the Mass locations are not a problem (most are not the real locations anyway, it's just the town name where the Mass location is, not the physical house address). Bp. Stobnicki had zero problems for example giving me his locations. Again, it's weird that they want to run all communication through Broadstairs but at the time I wasn't suspicious yet:
Hi [name],
yeah that’s no problem I just need „rough locations“ or town names, like Bp Stobnicki gave me: for the E-Mail contact, I’ll just put in your E-Mail. The map is just supposed to „show presence“, so that someone can see „okay there is a mass location somewhere in Exampleshire“. [...] Has Bp Ballini been "kicked out" of Ireland? At least I heard that from Fr. Marcel.
I didn't receive a response. Then, two days after this thread was started, I remembered that Broadstairs knew about the situation and reached out again:
Hi [name],
besides the missing Mass locations (okay fine, I’ll just send everyone in the UK to you for Mass coordination), the problem is that this „dodgy priest“ situation now turned into a complete PR disaster for the Resistance because of the police arrest of „Dr. K“ and his wife. This "Dr. K.“ guy now made a YT video with 300k views about his „harassment arrest“ over E-Mails. He says he wrote angry E-Mails because he was being blocked over being referred to a shady „priest“. Something extremely weird is going on here. I beg of you to please make some blog post or respond to this E-Mail: What is exactly going on? Where is +Ballini? Where is +Morgan? Why did Dr. K get blocked (mistake?)? What relation does this „priest“ have with the Resistance? Is he even a priest? The „priest“ (Fr. Kerry Moran?) seems to have been only a deacon. Who ordained him, +Viganó, BpW? It’s unlikely that multiple dioceses conspired against one guy, who won’t even say who ordained him.
The Church has indeed defended herself against false allegations (e.g. Cardinal Rampolla was defended against Masonic allegations by Church officials), I’m not buying that excuse. But silence breeds rumor, which we need to avoid. It’ll only get worse with silence. I personally just want to resist liberalism (I’m not pro-Hewko, as you know) - but „we have few priests" cannot be an excuse for taking in any priest claiming persecution or arresting people for writing E-Mails warning about a specific „priest“. I cannot seriously recruit people for the SSPX Resistance while this scandal is going on: https://archive.is/IhB8C (https://archive.is/IhB8C)
What is weird about this Dr. K. guy is that he is running around in shades, even in Church, and makes videos with indecently clothed women. But other than that, +Morgan did celebrate in his chapel and he otherwise doesn’t seem to have a reason for lying (Social media fame? Wanting to randomly destroy the Resistance, why, he’s not leftist?). On the other hand, now the police sent 3 cars to arrest him, which is severely disproportionate for just „harassment“. Maybe because of his videos (which have now been taken down?), but then it would be better to simply refute him.
Sorry for asking, but the situation simply doesn’t look good for +Ballini and +Morgan. Why are they so silent? If the bishops made a mistake with the blocking + arrest, it would be better to own up to it now, rather than making matters worse and ignoring everything. Mistakes / deceptions can happen, but I don’t understand why a simple „sorry we accidentally recommended the wrong priest“ has to turn into a PR disaster with 300k+ people watching. Being persecuted for defending the Faith is one thing, being persecuted for making a mistake is another.
Clearly the Police believed the allegations were nonsense.
Not really, the police is simply bound to investigate if a warrant is filed, no matter what. However, why would an full arrest warrant be filed over simple E-Mails? You can simply block them, answer them saying it was a mistake, etc. An escalation to a full-blown arrest looks extremely bad, as if we’re covering up something. The faithful are now confused as to who’s telling the truth and whether the UK / Irish Resistance bishops are still trustworthy, because they are so secretive / silent. I will defend a priests good name, but this weird secrecy because „we cannot defend ourselves publicly“ has to stop. Even if it’s all lies, then please just say so.
The good news is that we now have a Resistance group going in Germany, but PLEASE clear up the situation.
In Christ,
[my name]
So, this was on 27th of June (one week ago). I haven't received a response in a week, and, given that "I check this e-mail every day", I suppose I won't ever get a response. To sum up, Broadstairs:
- Knew about the situation since seven weeks ago
- Alleged to the police arrest as a "proof of guilt" on Kavanaughs part
- Doesn't want to hand out contacts / locations of any UK priests, to "protect against journalists"
- Doesn't want to clarify whats going on
I'm trying to find a best-case interpretation, but, given this poor communcation, I cannot list Broadstairs or Bp. Morgan himself as a good Mass location anymore, until I know what's going on.
At least on my part, I did what I could: I just want to write this up so nobody in the future can say "oh the Resistance covers up pedo priests" or "dubia.cc lists pedo / invalid priests" - no, I clearly don't, I removed roughly nearly a third of all priests (marked in red): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16wO1gTdilEcdqsWfJ0mZn-hgYD2MRJ1SCKSAHzcDj18/edit?gid=1507791103#gid=1507791103 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16wO1gTdilEcdqsWfJ0mZn-hgYD2MRJ1SCKSAHzcDj18/edit?gid=1507791103#gid=1507791103)
I brought up this topic in person with Fr. Marcel de la Croix, but he didn't know more than I do - although he has occasional physical contact with Broadstairs. I will now try to get the UK Mass locations in another way, other than Broadstairs. Potentially I could contact +Viganó or +Stobnicki, but that still wouldn't give clarity on what is going on in the UK.
My issue is not whether Fr. Moran is guilty or not: my issue is the horribly poor "I'll just ignore answering my e-mails and hope the problem will go away" type of communication of Broadstairs. I have no idea what's going on in the UK. So, until they fix their situation, I won't list them anymore. Simple as that and it's all I can do.
I hope this addresses any rumors and invalidates the idea that the Resistance would just "sweep it under the rug" - however, until Broadstairs / Bp. Morgan responds, there's no real point in speculating their motives.
Just in case anyone in the future will say that "the Resistance is a cult that just covers up scandals" - well, I did what I could. Pray for +Morgan and Broadstairs.
-
Well I still tried to wait for a response, but nothing. I also don't want to unnecessarily reveal anything private without necessity, but I guess the necessity is given now.
Thank you for the in depth explanation. Prayers for +Morgan, and clarity with all involved. :pray:
-
So in all of this, multiple attempts have been made (Piano guy and BaldwinIV) to find out who and when ordained Fr Moran. And still no answer. This should be public knowledge.
You can make the decision to ignore accusations of assault but you can’t make the decision to ignore questions of ordination. This is a very concerning leadership (or lack thereof) decision from the Resistance. Not good. They need some common sense.
-
1. Knew about the situation since seven weeks ago
2. Alleged to the police arrest as a "proof of guilt" on Kavanaughs part
3. Doesn't want to hand out contacts / locations of any UK priests, to "protect against journalists"
4. Doesn't want to clarify whats going on
This requires a bit of a response --
Point 2 was the most disturbing. That arrest could very well have been over nothing, as alleged by Kavanaugh. This is modern day Britain for crying out loud. YES British authorities would do such a thing. Britain's dystopian totalitarian lack of freedom has become a meme: "You have a loicense for that spoon, mate?"
And their excuse "The Church's ways aren't the world's ways" is just that -- an excuse. Yes, the Church doesn't operate just like the world with things like reputation, free speech, etc. But there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
First of all, we don't have the normal Church structure, including a parallel Judicial system. Normally clerics, upon being tonsured, gain one privilege among others: they are now dealt with in Ecclesiastical courts, and have a right to NOT get taken to any secular court. Those were the good old days. BUT -- the Church took care of it. They took care of all complaints, they took care of any law-breaking priests. They did their job.
You're saying the Resistance, or even the broader world of Tradition, has such a thing? Don't make me laugh! It's all up to the individual integrity of each independent Trad bishop. Sorry, that's not sufficient. That's why THE CLOSEST THING the Trad world has to "protection against pedo priests" is a popular, censorship-free public platform for sharing information across continents. But also a platform that strives to adhere to basic Catholic morality (censoring known lies, anti-Catholic material, smut, heretical tracts, etc.) because you don't want a free-for-all either. (Anyone who's moderated a forum with more than 100 people, for longer than a year, knows that "zero censorship" is a utopian pipe dream.) Yes, I'm talking about CathInfo (if I do say so myself). It is NOT a replacement for Ecclesiastical courts. But it's all we got.
-
This sounds really bad; you should clarify what you mean:
At least on my part, I did what I could: I just want to write this up so nobody in the future can say "oh the Resistance covers up pedo priests" or "dubia.cc lists pedo / invalid priests" - no, I clearly don't, I removed roughly nearly a third of all priests (marked in red): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16wO1gTdilEcdqsWfJ0mZn-hgYD2MRJ1SCKSAHzcDj18/edit?gid=1507791103#gid=1507791103 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16wO1gTdilEcdqsWfJ0mZn-hgYD2MRJ1SCKSAHzcDj18/edit?gid=1507791103#gid=1507791103)
Come on, guy, red-lining a priest because he's deceased, or sedevacantist, is not the same as re-lining because of skeletons in his closet or having "a past".
You shouldn't confuse the two. Your statement above sounds like you had to remove 1/3 of Resistance priests due to pedophilia. That is a misleading, click-baitey statement. And honestly, I don't think you meant to say that.
-
He was not a priest in the Conciliar Church, only a deacon.
This is a bit intriguing...Fr. Fake, (as a Deacon very probably?) gets dismissed June 6, 2024, and, Voilà! he already knows how to say the Trad Tridentine mass!? There are two FSSP locations in that diocese so we could presume he was familiar with the Latin liturgy. So when Fr.Fake was in Broadstairs ( July ?August? 2024), did +W give him extra training? Ask any seminarian and they will tell you that learning all the rubrics, gestures etc for saying mass is quite complicated. Surely there must have been red flags noticed by some of our bishops
...mysterious imo.
*****
https://www.amdg.asso.fr/lieux_messes_spv.htm
Martinique – Diocèse de Fort de France
1. FORT DE FRANCE - 97200 - Chapelle du Christ Roi - Place Paulette Nardale
SP
Messes : dimanche et fêtes 8h00
Célébrant : Abbé Pierre Zeclerc (diocèse)
Renseignements : 05 96 60 59 00 (Paroisse) - Site : https://cathedralesaintlouismartinique.fr
2. FORT DE FRANCE - 97200 - Chapelle du Foyer de l'Espérance - Patronage Saint-Louis - rue Adolfe Trillard (Chateauboeuf)
SP - depuis 09/2019
Messes : dimanche et fêtes 9h30 ; semaine : se renseigner ou consulter le groupe Telegram "Missa Tridentina 972"
Célébrant : Abbé Nicolas Challan Belval (diocèse - ass. ICRSP)
Renseignements : +596 696 77 00 78 (Abbé Challan Belval) - Courriel : missatridentina972gmail.com
-
You need a serious update for Bp. Trinh.
1. He is not "diocesan" at all. The simple fact of being formed outside the SSPX "at some point in the past" does not equal diocesan.
2. Related to #1, he is very much a TRADITIONAL priest/bishop, operating independent chapels according to the manner of the Traditional Movement. There is no part of him that could be REMOTELY described as conciliar, novus, indult, or diocesan.
3. As for his lineage, he is a valid bishop. Consecrated by an SSPX bishop, and when he couldn't get docuмents/proof of that, he got conditionally consecrated by Bp. Slupski. He's definitely a bishop.
4. He is very prudent/cautious about his apostolate, after the manner of "Traditional pioneer" priests coming from Communist countries -- like Fr. Slupski. Having known both men IRL, I can say that Bp. Trinh reminded me a lot of Bp. Slupski. Probably because they both had to fight Communism personally: one was from Vietnam, the other from Poland.
As I've said on CathInfo many times, I was raised in a Traditional chapel, with Fr. Frank Slupski as my priest. He want by "Fr. Frank" not because he was novus ordo, but because it was harder for the Stasi to track. He learned through tough life experience to be careful with one's personal information, etc.
-
Ask any seminarian and they will tell you that learning all the rubrics, gestures etc for saying mass is quite complicated. Surely there must have been red flags noticed by some of our bishops
As an ex-seminarian, I would say the exact opposite. At the Seminary, a man began to learn how to say Mass WEEKS before his Ordination to the priesthood. Sure, he might have planned ahead a bit and learned some of the prayers -- I don't know how much of that went on. But:
1. Fr. Goettler only began training deacons to say Mass a number of weeks before Ordinations
2. The common opinion, in various Trad circles, is that "learning to say Mass is the easy part". It's the Traditional training: morality, theology, philosophy, history, Liturgy, Scripture, Latin that takes years.
-
from the Mailbag --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To your point about the Mass not being difficult. Hardest part really
is the Latin. Rest is explained here by Fr. Goettler in 2 hours ... and
that's the meticulous "Goettler" type of explanation.
Now, it would require some practice, and it is in fact easier if you've
been serving, have been MC and had different roles in Solemn /
Pontifical / Cantata ... easier to absorb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHAGqlwLw6c
-
Come on, guy, red-lining a priest because he's deceased, or sedevacantist, is not the same as re-lining because of skeletons in his closet or having "a past".
You shouldn't confuse the two. Your statement above sounds like you had to remove 1/3 of Resistance priests due to pedophilia. That is a misleading, click-baitey statement. And honestly, I don't think you meant to say that.
Of course not, no. I just meant that I do "severe" checks and would rather not list a priest than list him than list him and he turns out to be fraudulent. I apologize for the poor word choice.
I removed 1/3rd for various reasons: being dead is a pretty obvious one. Then there were priests who didn't exist or I got the wrong person. Or I didn't find ANY locations, so in that case it doesn't matter anyways. I did my background checks with "Claude Research", so that it auto-searches hundreds of forums, personal blogs, archives and whatnot.
Wrt. to sedevacantists, I do list sedevacantists, ex. Fr. Ribas in Spain or Fr. Ringrose. That's not the issue. The issue is when they become "dogmatic" (ex. the late Fr. Weinzierl) or join existing sede organizations (i.e. I don't list priests that are already part of the CMRI, IBMC, SSPV, RCI - because what's the point, they don't need to be listed on two websites, if you want a sede priest, just go there).
I am not sure about Fr. Kramer and Bp. Roy. The former doesn't minister anymore (?) and the latter got kicked out by BpW (although in my opinion unfairly, as he states on his website, he published all the emails with BpW).
You need a serious update for Bp. Trinh.
1. He is not "diocesan" at all. The simple fact of being formed outside the SSPX "at some point in the past" does not equal diocesan.
No, it's because the AI gave me a report for "Rev. Paul Thai Trinh", a priest from the "Parochial Vicar at Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church" in California. The notes column said: "Does not exists? Confusion with Fr. Paul Thai Trihn exists in California, but this is a still-diocesan priest with similar name"
You are referring to Fr. (now Bp.) Anton Tai Trinh, a different person. I'm sorry, I did the checks semi-automatically since I didn't want to spend days researching priests. I fixed the mistake, he's properly listed now - however, I have no contact info other than to contact Fr. Ringrose.
In any case, it would be better to do this in a separate thread (I'll make one once I have the articles on there working with nihil obstat, etc.). Then we can verify the rest of the priests.
-
Before April 1, 2025 the investigation was already under way in Ireland about the Resistance movement/faithful , and " Fr." Fake. This newspaper reported that in its April 1 edition. So law enforcement agencies (even in England we could well imagine, given how cops communicate internationally) were already up to speed about this Defrocked cleric.
****
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41603506.html
"....Gardaí have confirmed that enquiries into the group are ongoing on foot of a complaint which alleges safeguarding breaches in relation to the defrocked priest. It is understood that at least one safeguarding organisation has also referred the matter to Tusla...."
******
6 policemen... to check up on some emails? The very morning the article appeared!!??
Surely someone of the Irish Resistance could have read this article, given notice to Broadstairs or whoever, and then someone could have reacted. ..or done some explaining before the Youtu be Arrest Video went online.
Sorry I'm getting redundant, but this is "mysterious".
Now the Resistance is reeling...
So disappointing.
-
"2. The common opinion, in various Trad circles, is that "learning to say Mass is the easy part". It's the Traditional training: morality, theology, philosophy, history, Liturgy, Scripture, Latin that takes years."
Mr. Moran's clerical training at Martinique was with the New Rite mainstream Church. Would it be possible to learn within 6-9 months (from the time he was laicized to the time Bishop Ballini put him on the Resistance circuit), everything you need in order to be a properly formed traditional priest? I mean, would his previous Novus Order training have offered some traditional value; that this is the explanation behind why he was rushed onto the public circuit after learning the basics of the Old Rite?
-
Baldwin IV -
Hi, just wondering if you have had any response from Bishop Morgan yet? Even privately. It's such a sad state of affairs. We knew Bishop Morgan (when he was Father) very well and our son used to be taught by Dr. Kavanagh before his internet career took off. They both used to be such good friends so this sudden hostility just doesn't make sense.
-
Baldwin IV -
Hi, just wondering if you have had any response from Bishop Morgan yet? Even privately. It's such a sad state of affairs. We knew Bishop Morgan (when he was Father) very well and our son used to be taught by Dr. Kavanagh before his internet career took off. They both used to be such good friends so this sudden hostility just doesn't make sense.
No, nothing yet. I doubt there will be a lot of updates in the coming months. I'll ask Fr. Marcel to ask Broadstairs in person, next time he's in England (he is occasionally). But this can take months. Bishop Morgan was described to me as a "diplomatic" personality. So yeah, I don't understand it either. Well, we need to pray.
-
Thanks, appreciate the reply. And yes, both parties are in our prayers.
-
That’s why the “set-up” scandal is plausible.
-
That’s why the “set-up” scandal is plausible.
What do you mean
-
The lack of response from the (2) Resistance Bishops, Vigano’s comments and the “victim” Brit who launched the viral complaint are all “irregular” events.
-
One other point on Kavanagh’s Catholic pedigree that needs to be considered is his relationship with the pseudo-Revisionist historian David Irving.
One post stated that Kavanagh had introduced +W to him. And supposedly HE developed his h0Ɩ0h0αx opinions based on this influence.
But for Catholics seeking the truth, what was Irving selling us? His general theme is that Hitler was a good guy.
But that not true. The nαzιs were Rothschild funded, and their hidden agenda was to herd European jews to Palestine to claim nationhood later.
One point that struck me on Irving’s false scholarship, was his attack on Colonel Klaus Von Stauffenberg.
Irving labeled Stauffenberg a traitor for his attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ Hitler.
Stauffenberg was a devout Catholic and blue blood of German military tradition.
He had sought advice from his Bishop and received his Apostolic blessing before his mission to depose Hitler.
Even though the mission failed and Hitler executed over 4,000 Germans in vengeance, it remains a selfless, patriotic act.
It helped to debunk the postwar jew-propaganda that all Germans were loyal to Hitler.
Von Stauffenber’s last words at his firing squad were:
“Long live Holy Germany!”
-
Quote from: Incredulous (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg992124#msg992124)
One other point on Kavanagh’s Catholic pedigree that needs to be considered is his relationship with the pseudo-Revisionist historian David Irving.
One post stated that Kavanagh had introduced +W to him. And supposedly HE developed his h0Ɩ0h0αx opinions based on this influence.
But for Catholics seeking the truth, what was Irving selling us? His general theme is that Hitler was a good guy.
But that not true. The nαzιs were Rothschild funded, and their hidden agenda was to herd European jews to Palestine to claim nationhood later.
One point that struck me on Irving’s false scholarship, was his attack on Colonel Klaus Von Stauffenberg.
Irving labeled Stauffenberg a traitor for his attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ Hitler.
Stauffenberg was a devout Catholic and blue blood of German military tradition.
He had sought advice from his Bishop and received his Apostolic blessing before his mission to depose Hitler.
Even though the mission failed and Hitler executed over 4,000 Germans in vengeance, it remains a selfless, patriotic act.
It helped to debunk the postwar jew-propaganda that all Germans were loyal to Hitler.
Von Stauffenber’s last words at his firing squad were:
“Long live Holy Germany!”
Thank you for your comment.
This issue is not about David Irving or historical side questions. It is about docuмented diocesan warnings, chancellery letters, and the silence of bishops when souls needed clarity.
Whether Dr. Kavanagh ever met Irving does not change the verified evidence concerning Fr. Moran. Our Lord taught us to judge by fruits. Here the fruits are confusion, silence, and the public arrest of a father who asked for the truth.
A priest’s ministry is a privilege for souls, not a personal right. When credible accusations arise, charity and prudence demand immediate withdrawal and transparent answers.
In the end, it is not about old controversies. It is about the salvation of souls and the duty to protect the flock. We owe Our Lord and every child nothing less.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M2EDO6pHyHw&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
In the video above, ‘Father’ Moran preached publicly in Derry on September 15, 2024, under Bishop Ballini’s oversight. Can Bishop Ballini provide a clear, signed statement explaining what he knew of Moran’s background, what precautions were taken, and on what grounds he permitted him to minister to the faithful?
-
Yes this is what is happening whether intentional or not.
Have any of the other resistance Bishops said anything?
No. There appears to still be an information lockdown?
But recall that Kavanagh wanted us to know the meaning of it all…
That the “Resistance” that this forum is dedicated to, is a cult.
-
No. There appears to still be an information lockdown?
But recall that Kavanagh wanted us to know the meaning of it all…
That the “Resistance” that this forum is dedicated to, is a cult.
I'm not defending the bishops INVOLVED in this matter (Bp. Morgan, Bp. Ballini)
But Kavanaugh Mr. "boogie woogie" is wrong about that, obviously. We're the ones asking questions and seeking justice. That is NOT cult behavior.
He's full of shit.
-
If a bishop truly believes in the innocence of a priest, why not publish a detailed statement with evidence, to protect both the priest’s name and the faithful?
-
No. There appears to still be an information lockdown?
But recall that Kavanagh wanted us to know the meaning of it all…
That the “Resistance” that this forum is dedicated to, is a cult.
Very difficult for a "loose association of priests" to also be a cult.
-
"In the video above, ‘Father’ Moran preached publicly in Derry on September 15, 2024, under Bishop Ballini’s oversight. Can Bishop Ballini provide a clear, signed statement explaining what he knew of Moran’s background, what precautions were taken, and on what grounds he permitted him to minister to the faithful?"
Mr. Moran was only laicised as a Novus Order deacon on June 2024. Yet, less than three months later Bishop Ballini has him on the circuit preaching to Traditional Catholics?
Stroopwafel, was he merely preaching at this point or was he also offering Mass? While I don't agree with Dr. Kavanagh attacking the Resistance wholesale, I can appreciate why he is so upset with the Bishops Morgan and Ballini. Especially when his children were put at risk and because sadly, for some inexplicable reason, Bishop Morgan, who was a good friend of the family, has expressed no compassion for what Dr. Kavanagh's family had to suffer at the hands of the police. Could it be that both these Bishops have come under the influence of this con artist?
-
So this is why, SEVEN WEEKS AGO, I wrote to Broadstairs, after I noticed the "decrevi" Video that started it all (has been deleted in the meantime). Because of the "decrevi" Video, someone added the scandal to Wikipedia. So I wrote to Broadstairs on 20th of May:
The response came back on the same day:
So, Broadstairs knew that there were arrests going on, even back in May (now we have July, seven weeks later). This does not necessarily mean that Broadstairs created the harrassment campaign, but it strongly supports that theory.
...
I brought up this topic in person with Fr. Marcel de la Croix, but he didn't know more than I do - although he has occasional physical contact with Broadstairs. I will now try to get the UK Mass locations in another way, other than Broadstairs. Potentially I could contact +Viganó or +Stobnicki, but that still wouldn't give clarity on what is going on in the UK.
My issue is not whether Fr. Moran is guilty or not: my issue is the horribly poor "I'll just ignore answering my e-mails and hope the problem will go away" type of communication of Broadstairs. I have no idea what's going on in the UK. So, until they fix their situation, I won't list them anymore. Simple as that and it's all I can do.
I hope this addresses any rumors and invalidates the idea that the Resistance would just "sweep it under the rug" - however, until Broadstairs / Bp. Morgan responds, there's no real point in speculating their motives.
Just in case anyone in the future will say that "the Resistance is a cult that just covers up scandals" - well, I did what I could. Pray for +Morgan and Broadstairs.
Who the heck is "Broadstairs"? You mentioned him a LOT in your post.
I've never heard of a Fr. Broadstairs.
Or are you talking about a piece of real estate?
Lemme guess -- you're saying "Broadstairs" like we talk about "Menzingen" to represent "SSPX Authorities" or "SSPX Headquarters".
But EVEN THEN, I'm going to have to insist that you define your terms.
Headquarters of WHAT? Who exactly?
What does this "Broadstairs" represent in Sept 2025 (or July 2025 when you posted this)?
And another thing -- up until the death of Bp Williamson, "Broadstairs" was a stand-in for "Bishop Williamson".
Obviously the house/real estate stops referring to a given man once he is deceased.
But it's apt to cause confusion, because throughout the hundreds of thousands of posts on CathInfo, "Broadstairs" was typed out as a synonym for Bp Williamson, at least since he moved to that property after his ouster from the SSPX.
You repeated "Broadstairs" SO OFTEN in your post, WITHOUT CLARIFYING what you meant, that it makes me wonder if you weren't TRYING ON PURPOSE to insinuate a connection, at least by accident, in readers' minds.
-
Who the heck is "Broadstairs"? You mentioned him a LOT in your post.
I've never heard of a Fr. Broadstairs.
Or are you talking about a piece of real estate?
Lemme guess -- you're saying "Broadstairs" like we talk about "Menzingen" to represent "SSPX Authorities" or "SSPX Headquarters".
But EVEN THEN, I'm going to have to insist that you define your terms.
Headquarters of WHAT? Who exactly?
What does this "Broadstairs" represent in Sept 2025 (or July 2025 when you posted this)?
And another thing -- up until the death of Bp Williamson, "Broadstairs" was a stand-in for "Bishop Williamson".
Obviously the house/real estate stops referring to a given man once he is deceased.
But it's apt to cause confusion, because throughout the hundreds of thousands of posts on CathInfo, "Broadstairs" was typed out as a synonym for Bp Williamson, at least since he moved to that property after his ouster from the SSPX.
You repeated "Broadstairs" SO OFTEN in your post, WITHOUT CLARIFYING what you meant, that it makes me wonder if you weren't TRYING ON PURPOSE to insinuate a connection, at least by accident, in readers' minds.
Chill Matthew, not everything is a conspiracy. "Broadstairs" refers to "17 West Cliff Road, Broadstairs", the house where Bp. Williamson lived until his death: https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/broadstairs/ (https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/broadstairs/) As far as I know, only Fr. Abraham is residing in the house (he lived with Bp. Williamson, to my knowledge).
I emailed the "Secretary of Bp. Williamson" (letters@eleisoncomments.com / E.C.correspondence@protonmail.com), who took over Bp. Williamsons E-Mail account after his death. He said, he knows about all Resistance Mass locations in the UK, but didn't want to give out any information for fear of persecution by journalists. Whether that's the real reason, I don't know.
I could reveal his name (the one I got per E-Mail, could be fake), but it doesn't add anything to the situation. It would just be impolite, just as I wouldn't want anyone to associate my name online with any scandal. I still value the privacy of people as long as there isn't any active danger. "Name and shame" does nothing here.
Even Bp. Williamsons grave location had to be kept secret so that Antifa wouldn't desecrate it. We don't live in America here in Europe, we don't have as much freedom as you do. I'm not sure if Americans get the message: here, you cannot just go around posting peoples names online without there being potential consequences. In America, everything is public on Twitter and nobody cares about privacy. This thread had 1000s of people watching when the scandal happened, remember? There are crazy / leftist people out there. So that's why I said "Broadstairs" instead of "Mr. XY", I refrain from posting peoples names online unless there's a serious reason, in order to protect their physical security and good name.
I haven't heard from him anymore. My current plan is to bring up the issue again with Bp. Stobnicki end of this month and discuss what to do. I don't want to let this massive problem "slide", but I also don't want to unnecessarily attack people by name online - because if it ever turns out that Bp. Morgan is innocent, then it would have been very impolite to unnecessarily cause problems. Not everything needs to be online. I already have scruples if I accidentally reveal a sin of someone if it wasn't 100% necessary to reveal it.
-
I haven't heard from him anymore. My current plan is to bring up the issue again with Bp. Stobnicki end of this month and discuss what to do. I don't want to let this massive problem "slide", but I also don't want to unnecessarily attack people by name online - because if it ever turns out that Bp. Morgan is innocent, then it would have been very impolite to unnecessarily cause problems. Not everything needs to be online. I already have scruples if I accidentally reveal a sin of someone if it wasn't 100% necessary to reveal it.
I understand the need for privacy, particularly as we don't have all the facts yet, however, as we have friends with children who attend the Masses of the Resistance priests in UK/Ireland, please would you keep us updated when you have more information - even privately. Another resistance family has just started coming to our SSPX chapels (that's five now) because of this laicized man being put on the resistance circuit. It is obviously being taken very seriously by many of the resistance faithful and that worries us all the more - where is this man now?
-
Chill Matthew, not everything is a conspiracy. "Broadstairs" refers to "17 West Cliff Road, Broadstairs", the house where Bp. Williamson lived until his death: https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/broadstairs/ (https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/broadstairs/) As far as I know, only Fr. Abraham is residing in the house (he lived with Bp. Williamson, to my knowledge).
I emailed the "Secretary of Bp. Williamson" (letters@eleisoncomments.com / E.C.correspondence@protonmail.com), who took over Bp. Williamsons E-Mail account after his death. He said, he knows about all Resistance Mass locations in the UK, but didn't want to give out any information for fear of persecution by journalists. Whether that's the real reason, I don't know.
I could reveal his name (the one I got per E-Mail, could be fake), but it doesn't add anything to the situation. It would just be impolite, just as I wouldn't want anyone to associate my name online with any scandal. I still value the privacy of people as long as there isn't any active danger. "Name and shame" does nothing here.
...
So that's why I said "Broadstairs" instead of "Mr. XY", I refrain from posting peoples names online unless there's a serious reason, in order to protect their physical security and good name.
Thank you for the clarification. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. I asked for a very legitimate clarification, and I still stand by everything I said. If you search for "Broadstairs" on CathInfo, almost every instance will be a synonym for Bp Williamson or Bp Williamson's apostolate. That is still a fact. Before the late +Williamson purchased Broadstairs, it was mentioned on CathInfo exactly 0 times. And I think you are the first person to use "Broadstairs" since +Williamson's passing. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Another clarification -- he's not the secretary of Bp Williamson anymore, once the latter passed on to his eternal reward. He needs to update his e-mail name/identification. You don't get to represent someone who is dead.
I'm very touchy about anti-Bishop Williamson innuendo, malicious rumor, slander, and outright attacks, especially with a single insane Hewko cultist joining the forum repeatedly, and attacking Bp. Williamson/Bp Zendejas before being outed and banned again.
These cultists have no shame, and don't even refrain from attacking the dead, who can no longer defend themselves. It is quite cowardly and anything but manly.
So yeah -- my toleration for such nonsense is about zero these days.
-
The Hewko cultist just made another appearance.
For shame -- the dishonesty! He lectures us about this and that, while acting like a total snake, hiding behind various names, DECEIVING us that they are not all the same person, LYING about his identity --
While they have the same IP address -- so for that (and other reasons, including common sense) they are obviously the same person!
"Judge a tree by its fruits".
-
I understand the need for privacy, particularly as we don't have all the facts yet, however, as we have friends with children who attend the Masses of the Resistance priests in UK/Ireland, please would you keep us updated when you have more information - even privately. Another resistance family has just started coming to our SSPX chapels (that's five now) because of this laicized man being put on the resistance circuit. It is obviously being taken very seriously by many of the resistance faithful and that worries us all the more - where is this man now?
Are you talking about derry?
-
"In the video above, ‘Father’ Moran preached publicly in Derry on September 15, 2024, under Bishop Ballini’s oversight. Can Bishop Ballini provide a clear, signed statement explaining what he knew of Moran’s background, what precautions were taken, and on what grounds he permitted him to minister to the faithful?"
Mr. Moran was only laicised as a Novus Order deacon on June 2024. Yet, less than three months later Bishop Ballini has him on the circuit preaching to Traditional Catholics?
Stroopwafel, was he merely preaching at this point or was he also offering Mass? While I don't agree with Dr. Kavanagh attacking the Resistance wholesale, I can appreciate why he is so upset with the Bishops Morgan and Ballini. Especially when his children were put at risk and because sadly, for some inexplicable reason, Bishop Morgan, who was a good friend of the family, has expressed no compassion for what Dr. Kavanagh's family had to suffer at the hands of the police. Could it be that both these Bishops have come under the influence of this con artist?
So this Moran person is still saying mass like as we speak in the uk? There are a few priests on YouTube that are demanding clarity and have not memory holed this
-
Are you talking about derry?
No. As far as I'm aware - because of the publicity generated against him by the Bishop of Derry - this laicized ex-cleric left Ireland for England to stay with Bishop Morgan at Broadstairs. That said, where he is now, no one seems to know. And my fear is, given what happened to Dr. Brendan Kavanagh, who has children 14 and under, the same could be happening to another family - even back in Ireland. This man was extremely secretive - would not give is name or background - and has a history of accusations (plural) for child abuse that stems back twenty years ago. See link below.
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 (https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)
* As I discovered later from Resistance faithful, Bishop Ballini put him on the Irish Resistance Mass circuit in September 2024. That's only three months after being formally laicized for child abuse by the Church. Archbishop Vigano said he warned Bishop Ballini to dissociate himself from Mr. Moran, however Bishop Ballini, for reasons unknown, ignored this warning. That would have taken place sometime between Sept. 2024 - March 2025.
The sooner someone gets clarification on this whole mess the better and safer it will be for everyone. This is a ticking time-bomb.
-
No. As far as I'm aware - because of the publicity generated against him by the Bishop of Derry - this laicized ex-cleric left Ireland for England to stay with Bishop Morgan at Broadstairs. That said, where he is now, no one seems to know. And my fear is, given what happened to Dr. Brendan Kavanagh, who has children 14 and under, the same could be happening to another family - even back in Ireland. This man was extremely secretive - would not give is name or background - and has a history of accusations (plural) for child abuse that stems back twenty years ago. See link below.
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 (https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)
* As I discovered later from Resistance faithful, Bishop Ballini put him on the Irish Resistance Mass circuit in September 2024. That's only three months after being formally laicized for child abuse by the Church. Archbishop Vigano said he warned Bishop Ballini to dissociate himself from Mr. Moran, however Bishop Ballini, for reasons unknown, ignored this warning. That would have taken place sometime between Sept. 2024 - March 2025.
The sooner someone gets clarification on this whole mess the better and safer it will be for everyone. This is a ticking time-bomb.
Woah woah slow down, how do you know all this information, word of mouth? Are saying that this person was provided refuge by Bishop Morgan, did you hear this from him?
There is no way, I don’t believe someone is not looking into this and that has the fully story completely, someone has to.
I have seen you write on this website before and you attend the new society, how can we verify what you say.
-
Woah woah slow down, how do you know all this information, word of mouth? Are saying that this person was provided refuge by Bishop Morgan, did you hear this from him?...
Tidbit of info from Europe:
Someone had a conversation with +M, inquiring about the lack of action or "Statement" re: "fr." Moran. He was told something like this:
' The world (media) has its ways of dealing with these stories ( creating hype etc.) ...but the Catholic Church has another way.'
*****
Pray.
-
THIS is the sort of thing I flee from like the wedding of Bubonic Plague and Ebola. Count me out.
-
Woah woah slow down, how do you know all this information, word of mouth? Are saying that this person was provided refuge by Bishop Morgan, did you hear this from him?
There is no way, I don’t believe someone is not looking into this and that has the fully story completely, someone has to.
I have seen you write on this website before and you attend the new society, how can we verify what you say.
Ah, a fan.
If you read through the thread and listen to Dr. Kavanagh's testimony you will find the information verified and collaborated. I have also spoken to resistance faithful who have left because of this man. They were not warned about this man's background.
Please don't start a smear campaign on me to distract from this. It's too important. We already had a poster calling himself 'Truthy' doing that to the Kavanagh family which was shameful given all they had just gone through.
Brendan Kavanagh has young children. He was recommended "a priest" by Bishop Morgan. If you check the time-frame, this happened after Moran left Ireland due to the publicity generated by the Bishop of Derry. We know he was recommended by Bishop Morgan, because Dr. Kavanaugh told us so. Before this episode, Bishop Morgan and Fr. Kavanagh were friends; Dr. Kavannagh used to teach English at the SSPX school. I know this because he used to be our son's teacher. We also used to know Bishop Morgan quite well before he left the SSPX.
From an email sent to a poster here by someone connected to Broadstairs, we also know that Bishop Morgan believed Moran's counter story. Yet Archbishop Vigano tells us - a copy of the email is on this thread somewhere - they were deceived. This is supported by copies of official emails sent from Moran's former superior who confirms he was defrocked from the clerical state for "acts contrary to the sixth commandment (adultery) with a minor" and that he has been accused throughout his career for the same from different and separate organizations.
I think you will agree that there is enough verifiable evidence to support the need for some serious clarification and reassurances.
-
Tidbit of info from Europe:
Someone had a conversation with +M, inquiring about the lack of action or "Statement" re: "fr." Moran. He was told something like this:
' The world (media) has its ways of dealing with these stories ( creating hype etc.) ...but the Catholic Church has another way.'
*****
Pray.
Tidbit? What are you talking about here, we are talking about protecting the innocence of children what kind of cryptic statement is this.
Who spoke to the bishop? How do you know this is true? What are you even saying? Are you saying Bishop Morgan told someone you knew that the “Church” will handle it? If that’s what you’re saying what does he mean by the Church? Him and other traditional Bishops? Is he talking about the Concilliar authorities laying out justice? The civil authorities?
If it’s him how does he explain that housing him and covering for him is the Church “helping?” Please provide clarity this kind of junk makes everyone look worse.
-
Ah, a fan.
If you read through the thread and listen to Dr. Kavanagh's testimony you will find the information verified and collaborated. I have also spoken to resistance faithful who have left because of this man. They were not warned about this man's background.
Please don't start a smear campaign on me to distract from this. It's too important. We already had a poster calling himself 'Truthy' doing that to the Kavanagh family which was shameful given all they had just gone through.
Brendan Kavanagh has young children. He was recommended "a priest" by Bishop Morgan. If you check the time-frame, this happened after Moran left Ireland due to the publicity generated by the Bishop of Derry. We know he was recommended by Bishop Morgan, because Dr. Kavanaugh told us so. Before this episode, Bishop Morgan and Fr. Kavanagh were friends; Dr. Kavannagh used to teach English at the SSPX school. I know this because he used to be our son's teacher. We also used to know Bishop Morgan quite well before he left the SSPX.
From an email sent to a poster here by someone connected to Broadstairs, we also know that Bishop Morgan believed Moran's counter story. Yet Archbishop Vigano tells us - a copy of the email is on this thread somewhere - they were deceived. This is supported by copies of official emails sent from Moran's former superior who confirms he was defrocked from the clerical state for "acts contrary to the sixth commandment (adultery) with a minor" and that he has been accused throughout his career for the same from different and separate organizations.
I think you will agree that there is enough verifiable evidence to support the need for some serious clarification and reassurances.
First of all I get what your saying, but don’t be shocked to hear in a resistance conversation that the resistant does not trust a new society member.
However what you say here is absolutely true, especially: “I think you will agree that there is enough verifiable evidence to support the need for some serious clarification and reassurances.”
A trick of the ʝʊdɛօmasons is to memory hole literally everything and provide absolute silence until everyone especially in this modern age with a memory of goldfish forget. Well I can assure you I will not forget, this needs light and constant investigation until this is settled, publicly as it is a public scandal, and children are at risk.
-
Chill Matthew, not everything is a conspiracy. "Broadstairs" refers to "17 West Cliff Road, Broadstairs", the house where Bp. Williamson lived until his death: https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/broadstairs/ (https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/broadstairs/) As far as I know, only Fr. Abraham is residing in the house (he lived with Bp. Williamson, to my knowledge).
I emailed the "Secretary of Bp. Williamson" (letters@eleisoncomments.com / E.C.correspondence@protonmail.com), who took over Bp. Williamsons E-Mail account after his death. He said, he knows about all Resistance Mass locations in the UK, but didn't want to give out any information for fear of persecution by journalists. Whether that's the real reason, I don't know.
I could reveal his name (the one I got per E-Mail, could be fake), but it doesn't add anything to the situation. It would just be impolite, just as I wouldn't want anyone to associate my name online with any scandal. I still value the privacy of people as long as there isn't any active danger. "Name and shame" does nothing here.
Even Bp. Williamsons grave location had to be kept secret so that Antifa wouldn't desecrate it. We don't live in America here in Europe, we don't have as much freedom as you do. I'm not sure if Americans get the message: here, you cannot just go around posting peoples names online without there being potential consequences. In America, everything is public on Twitter and nobody cares about privacy. This thread had 1000s of people watching when the scandal happened, remember? There are crazy / leftist people out there. So that's why I said "Broadstairs" instead of "Mr. XY", I refrain from posting peoples names online unless there's a serious reason, in order to protect their physical security and good name.
I haven't heard from him anymore. My current plan is to bring up the issue again with Bp. Stobnicki end of this month and discuss what to do. I don't want to let this massive problem "slide", but I also don't want to unnecessarily attack people by name online - because if it ever turns out that Bp. Morgan is innocent, then it would have been very impolite to unnecessarily cause problems. Not everything needs to be online. I already have scruples if I accidentally reveal a sin of someone if it wasn't 100% necessary to reveal it.
So are you doing in more investigating, will you be posting to ur website?
-
So are you doing in more investigating, will you be posting to ur website?
I'll see how it goes and post the result here.
-
I'll see how it goes and post the result here.
brilliant, thank you
-
Okay, I did tell him to nudge Bp. Morgan if he sees him, but only before Mass in the confessional, so he may accidentally be bound by the confessional seal. Here's a short recap / timeline of what happened (for Bp. Stobnicki):
- A YouTube personality, Brendan Kavanaugh and his wife have a private Catholic chapel on their property where they have a monthly TLM
- Brendan has about 2.6 MILLION subscribers on YouTube
- Brendan had good connections to Bishop Williamson, as evidenced by this photograph in 2015 (?):
(https://i.imgur.com/3vUR3mO.png)
- In early 2025 they were recommended a priest by a Catholic family, endorsed by Bishop Morgan
- The priest in question ("Fr." Kerry Moran) had unusual demands for secrecy and wouldn't reveal basic information about his ordination
- After the visit, Brendan became suspicious due to red flags, he sent a reference to the Catholic archdiocese in Martinique (Novus Ordo), where the priest had previously worked
- Three weeks later, he received an official email stating the priest had been defrocked due to child abuse and should not be operating as a priest
- Brendan forwarded this official docuмent to Bishop Morgan, who had recommended Fr. Moran
- - Instead of investigating, Bishop Morgan blocked him.
So that was the initial problem. After that, Kavanaugh uploaded his first video to the channel of a friend, Robert Nugent. This video is now deleted, but the remains are on the German Wikipedia page:
In a video posted in spring 2025, Irish-Canadian Catholic YouTuber Robert Nugent quoted two letters about a priest who had been ordained as a deacon in Fort-de-France on August 26, 2017, and had lost his clerical status on February 6, 2024, after being found guilty of child abuse.
According to Nugent, one letter came from Abbé Benoît Paul-Joseph in Fort-de-France and confirmed the outcome of the investigation and the verdict, while the other came from Carlo Maria Viganò, who stated that this man was extremely deceitful, that contact with him should be avoided, and that he should under no circuмstances have contact with children and young people. Ballini had been informed but had unfortunately taken no action.
Two days later, YouTuber Brendan Kavanagh contacted Nugent's channel and explained that this “dodgy priest” had celebrated Mass in his private chapel in the UK, but had behaved so strangely during the visit to his property that he had inquired in Martinique and learned that the man was no longer a clergyman for the reasons mentioned above.
He had obtained the man's phone number from the SSPX Resistance and hired him “on good faith.” He forwarded the response from Martinique to Bishop Paul Morgan. Morgan, who according to Kavanagh had vouched for the man, also responded to the statement from Martinique with silence. The former priest himself claims that he is the victim of a conspiracy and that the archbishop of Martinique personally pressured children to make false statements against him.
So, Viganò already found these issues credible and said, we should not associate with him. At this point, I already wrote to Broadstairs, this was on the 20th of May this year:
[...] What I will remark is that the British group really needs to clear up the „dodgy priest“ allegations, because the German Wikipedia page now slanders the Resistance as hiding pedos. [...] Now I say: it was reported to the police, the police didn’t find anything so far, so a simple statement by +Morgan „the priest hasn’t been officially convicted, so we still work with him“ would be enough [...]. If you could forward this to +Morgan, that’d be great. [...]
The response came back the same day:
[...] I must say the 'dodgy priests' allegations are complete nonsense. In fact with the recent claims, the couple who started the rumours a few months ago were arrested by the Police and charged with criminal harassment. Clearly the Police believed the allegations were nonsense. As BpW often said the Church ways are different from the ways of the world and so statements are not put out against these defamations and lies. The Church has never operated like that. All the so-called resistants know the truth.
- Broadstairs knew that there were arrests going on, even back in May.
- The suspicious part is that they alleged to the arrest as a form of "proven guilty"
- I didn't know that "the couple who started the rumors" referred to Kavanaugh and his wife
So I thought the issue was done.
But then, on the 25th of June, the video at the beginning of this thread was posted, in which Kavanaugh explains that he had been arrested by the police for "harrassment" because of the e-mails that he sent to Bishop Morgan. At face value, this is clearly extremely weird. So on the 27th of June, I wrote another e-mail, since I remembered that the Broadstairs group knew about the situation. The entire text is here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991835/#msg991835), but it's very friendly in tone.
I only asked for a clarification on the situation, because in the meantime the scandal reached more than 100.000+ views on YouTube (the arrest video had more than ONE MILLION VIEWS). I did not receive any response so far, nor does anyone know anything about the scandal.
- So far, the only apparent "defense" of Fr. Moran was posted here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991460/#msg991460), claiming that there is evidence that the allegations of the diocese are made up. However, this is only an anonymous post here, not backed up by any evidence and does not explain the silence of Bp. Morgan, Bp. Ballini or Broadstairs. The priest (? - he was merely a deacon in the Novus Ordo seminary?) is still running around, somehow "connected" to the Resistance in Ireland and the UK, which has caused such a scandal that some people have gone back to the neo-SSPX.
For Bp. Stobnicki: Please ask Bp. Morgan what on earth is going on, who ordained this guy and why, if there is any counter-evidence to the diocesan claims and why we are associating with this guy against the warnings of Abp. Viganò.
-
For Bp. Stobnicki: Please ask Bp. Morgan what on earth is going on, who ordained this guy and why, if there is any counter-evidence to the diocesan claims and why we are associating with this guy against the warnings of Abp. Viganò.[/li][/list]
Thank you for your investigation updates.
With regards to the quote above, are you asking someone to ask Bishop Stobnicki or are you asking him and awaiting his reply?
Thanks.
-
With regards to the quote above, are you asking someone to ask Bishop Stobnicki or are you asking him and awaiting his reply?
I did send this thread to him on WhatsApp, so at least he's notified. He does travel a lot in Poland so I'm not surprised if nothing happens for now (it's not like the bishops meet every day and these discussions are better done in person than over text). On Sunday evening I forgot to discuss it, we mostly discussed a bit over the "Fr. Hewko question", his position on the papacy and some related issues. I will meet, God willing, Bp. Zendejas at the end of October for my confirmation, so I can ask him, too, if he knows anything (doubt it because it's more a European issue).
-
Is this priest still saying Mass for the SSPX resistance?
-
Such a mess! As a laywoman, I have no trust in myself to untangle it, therefore, if presented with the choice of Mass with a doubtful priest or home alone, I opt for home alone.
-
I did send this thread to him on WhatsApp, so at least he's notified. He does travel a lot in Poland so I'm not surprised if nothing happens for now (it's not like the bishops meet every day and these discussions are better done in person than over text). On Sunday evening I forgot to discuss it, we mostly discussed a bit over the "Fr. Hewko question", his position on the papacy and some related issues. I will meet, God willing, Bp. Zendejas at the end of October for my confirmation, so I can ask him, too, if he knows anything (doubt it because it's more a European issue).
Sadly I don’t think we will find the clarity we are looking for, nor will we hear the condemnation this scandal deserves it seems, we can only pray and continue to press for the truth.
-
I did send this thread to him on WhatsApp, so at least he's notified. He does travel a lot in Poland so I'm not surprised if nothing happens for now (it's not like the bishops meet every day and these discussions are better done in person than over text). On Sunday evening I forgot to discuss it, we mostly discussed a bit over the "Fr. Hewko question", his position on the papacy and some related issues. I will meet, God willing, Bp. Zendejas at the end of October for my confirmation, so I can ask him, too, if he knows anything (doubt it because it's more a European issue).
Does he state whether or not the N.O can pass grace?
-
I did send this thread to him on WhatsApp, so at least he's notified. He does travel a lot in Poland so I'm not surprised if nothing happens for now (it's not like the bishops meet every day and these discussions are better done in person than over text). On Sunday evening I forgot to discuss it, we mostly discussed a bit over the "Fr. Hewko question", his position on the papacy and some related issues. I will meet, God willing, Bp. Zendejas at the end of October for my confirmation, so I can ask him, too, if he knows anything (doubt it because it's more a European issue).
Please let us know if Bp Stobniki responds.
I hope the faithful who attend resistance in UK and Ireland are aware to avoid this priest.
-
Please let us know if Bp Stobniki responds.
I hope the faithful who attend resistance in UK and Ireland are aware to avoid this priest.
Well good news and bad news on that, I have heard almost half the parish left because of the scandal in Ireland and went back to the fake SSPX.
Good news is they have placed themselves out of danger physically, but placed themselves into greater, grave spiritual danger .
-
Well good news and bad news on that, I have heard almost half the parish left because of the scandal in Ireland and went back to the fake SSPX.
Good news is they have placed themselves out of danger physically, but placed themselves into greater, grave spiritual danger .
"...placed themselves into greater, grave spiritual danger..." Think about what you have just said carefully - Who do you think allowed these dangerous priests/fake priest onto the circuit? Do you really think these same two bishops can provide better spiritual guidance than the SSPX priests? I have spoken to these families - we knew them all before they left - and I can tell you they are relieved to be back. Not just because of the terrible risk they had faced with regards to their children, but also because of all the doom and gloom that was being pushed. They said they felt spiritually depleted and demoralized. This is not an attack on other Resistance bishops /priests. I am speaking solely about Bishop Ballini and - by extension - Bishop Morgan who actually went on the attack against the Kavanaghs, and months on, has still refused to clarify or apologise for the situation. Neither has Bishop Ballini. I'm sorry, these are not the actions of clergy who care about their faithful.
-
"...placed themselves into greater, grave spiritual danger..." Think about what you have just said carefully - Who do you think allowed these dangerous priests/fake priest onto the circuit? Do you really think these same two bishops can provide better spiritual guidance than the SSPX priests? I have spoken to these families - we knew them all before they left - and I can tell you they are relieved to be back. Not just because of the terrible risk they had faced with regards to their children, but also because of all the doom and gloom that was being pushed. They said they felt spiritually depleted and demoralized. This is not an attack on other Resistance bishops /priests. I am speaking solely about Bishop Ballini and - by extension - Bishop Morgan who actually went on the attack against the Kavanaghs, and months on, has still refused to clarify or apologise for the situation. Neither has Bishop Ballini. I'm sorry, these are not the actions of clergy who care about their faithful.
I agree with you, it sounds as if resistance in UK and Ireland is best avoided due to lack of safeguarding and poor leadership.
The behaviour of Bp Morgan and Bp Ballini has been appalling in their inability to handle this situation.
-
..., and the incense will hit the fan (to put it politely!) The fact that +Morgan has made no public statement is disappointing. I reach out to my fellow Catholics in the Polish community who are involved in SSPX Resistance, and I feel your pain. Yopu have been disgracefully served by your bishop and deserve an explanation.
It is clear that the person at the centre of this horrible story was either ordained priest (after his Catholic dismissal) by +Morgan, or +Viganò, or +Ballini, so one of them needs to have the thuribles to own up!
It would have been better to just say "the shit hit the fan" (4-letter words aren't sinful, just rude or uncharitable in certain contexts) and say "needs to have the stones/rocks/balls/cajones to own up!"
...rather than comparing sacred incense to SHIT, or thuribles to MALE GONADS.
Is this the lengths some go to, to avoid 4-letter "cuss" words, which aren't even sinful? You strained out a gnat, then swallowed a camel.
I would argue you committed a *much worse sin or fault* by near-blasphemy against these sacred objects. A complete lack of respect for objects used in sacred worship. Just use the damn cuss words already, it would have been better. Those terms for balls (rocks, stones, balls, cajones) aren't even cuss words -- more like "earthy" terms.
-
Quote from Dustin 1088 today:
The horrifying incident that the Kavanagh family experienced (i.e. being sent a priest by +Morgan of SSPX Resistance - a priest who was verifiably laicised in Martinique when a deacon, as shown in.
*******
YouTube link at the end of Dr
K's X account post.
'Fr'. MORAN singing the "Asperges me" at the Barn Chapel , SEPT 8, 2024.
Clic on the bottom link of the X commentary for the YTube 1 min video.Which bishop recommended 'Fr.' Moran that time?? +Morgan could well be innocent... Did "fr" Moran send coppers?
https://x.com/brenkav/status/1901067238116909248
-
The SSPX Resistance was founded to be a loose association of trad communities, decentralized to avoid Jєωιѕн infiltration.
The SSPX Resistance is now leader less
Looks like the Jews still won.
:popcorn:
-
Here we go again. A newbie who signed up today with a poorly made up back story. I looked up the church he mentions in the town of Folkestone, Our Lady Help of Christians. They have no Polish Mass and no mention of a Polish community. Who is the Polish community in Broadstairs? Nice try whoever you are. Brendan Kavanagh or his wife? What are you trying to achieve? Another Salsa? Do some better research if you are going to get people to believe you.
-
Your explanation is very genuine and I applaud yourwork in trying to get proper explanations here. In the end - regardless of ecclesial or political allegiances - the safeguarding of children from predators takes priority over everything. I have already reported Kerry Michael ('Ciarán') Moran to the CSSA, the Catholic safeguarding agency, since nobody else seems to have bothered to do it! Please feel free to message me BaldwinIV, as I feel for the pain of a Polish community betrayed. I will be writing this up as an official Catholic church article for public consumption, so the broader input I can get from you will improve the interests of all.
Yeah well, I noticed that Bp. Stobnicki sadly didn't read my WhatsApp message, so I sent it to him via E-Mail again today. It's more likely he checks his E-Mail than his WhatsApp. Sorry for the delay, this was my fault, not his. Also, he's traveling a lot throughout Poland, so he was just the closest bishop I could contact, technically he doesn't have much to do with the situation (only Ballini, Morgan or Viganò know anything).
I'll hopefully be with Bp. Zendejas in Switzerland end of this month, so I can ask there, too. However, in order to protect Bp. Stobnicki, please hold off on any articles or things like that, due to the decentralized nature it can take a while for these issues to get resolved.
I was too busy these weeks arguing with the "True Resistance", that's one of the reasons why I didn't ask at the dinner. I'll obviously notify this thread if there are any updates.
-
Thanks, Twice dyed. (By the way my name is not "Dustin" but Dunstan, a founding Saxon archbishop of Canterbury...
Welcome to CathInfo.
Sorry about the typo...I work off a cell phone, hard to type, navigate...copy / paste etc. or proofread.
St Dunstan, pray for us.
-
Pray tell me how a "loose association" can suddenly be "leaderless"? Please! One of the hallmarks of Traditional Catholicism is the avoidance of lazy thinking.
Bishop Williamson was the titular leader of the SSPX Resistance. He unified us with his weekly "ECs".
Then, sometime last year. HE nominated the secretly, "Conditionally consecrated" Archbishop Vigano to be our light.
But then. the Archbishop has not come forward to lead the regional Bishop's, so they are in disarray.
They are like most the Apostles during the Crucifixion of our Lord... In hiding.
________________________________________
My thinking is not lazy Dunstan,
but forthright.
-
I have a connection with the Polish Catholic community in Folkestone who attend the regular Polish Mass at Our Lady Help of Christians. I am also aware of an SSPX Resistance group of Polish Catholics in East Kent (centred in Broadstairs) and know some individuals. .........................
The horrifying incident that the Kavanagh family experienced (i.e. being sent a priest by +Morgan of SSPX Resistance - a priest who was verifiably laicised in Martinique when a deacon, as shown in the Chancellor's emails from that diocese) was further compounded by +Morgan's response: to have the couple arrested over alleged "angry emails" by a convoy of three police cars, and handcuffed in front of their children. A civil complaint against the police has now been launched. What has not been launched is +Morgan's explanation. Why did he respond to a safeguarding alert by having the complainants arrested?
Reading this thread, I am so heartened to read the responses of so many supporting Brendan Kavanagh (the arrested father of the family) who is now launching a civil action against the police. When that action reaches the courts, the response of +Morgan to the family's correct safeguarding complaint will be the main focus, not the doctrinal niceties of this or that SSPX grouping, and the incense will hit the fan (to put it politely!) The fact that +Morgan has made no public statement is disappointing. I reach out to my fellow Catholics in the Polish community who are involved in SSPX Resistance, and I feel your pain. Yopu have been disgracefully served by your bishop and deserve an explanation.
It is clear that the person at the centre of this horrible story was either ordained priest (after his Catholic dismissal) by +Morgan, or +Viganò, or +Ballini, so one of them needs to have the thuribles to own up!
Archbishop Vigano stated that Moran had deceived himself and Bishop Williamson and as a result, he has broken ties with the Resistance over this deception. This suggests to me that he, Vigano, may have been the one duped into ordaining the renegade ex-clergyman. It would be extremely helpful if Vigano would make a statement clarifying exactly what actually happened. Meanwhile, thank you for your input and concern - and especially for helping the Kavanaghs; it is much appreciated.
-
I understand you know Brendan Kavanagh personally (through his professional teacher engagement in the SSPX school.) You can do no worse than back up my urging to him to cooperate with the CSSA in London to divulge his information to safeguarding officers. I have insisted on that and he failed to reply, so far, which is - to say the least - inconsistent.
>June 30th-July 1st: Non-trad Kavanagh uploads one or two (since deleted) videos on YouTube attacking and libeling CathInfo and it's members:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991198/#msg991198
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991198/#msg991198)https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991266/#msg991266 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991266/#msg991266)
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991272/#msg991272 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991272/#msg991272)
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991290/#msg991290 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991290/#msg991290)
>July 4th: Non-trad Boru (who allegedly knows Kavanagh) registers and begins her attempts at subverting and undermining the Catholic Faith and Traditional movement
Incredible
-
Kavanagh only sporadically attended resistance Masses over the years.
And now attends the Novus Ordo.
This should tell everyone all they need to know.
-
Kavanagh only sporadically attended resistance Masses over the years.
And now attends the Novus Ordo.
This should tell everyone all they need to know.
So if you attend sporadically the Resistance, it's acceptable to have a mass said by a rogue priest in your own home and then be arrested in front of your children and neighbours if you make a fuss about it???
Is that what you are suggesting? That he deserves this?
-
>June 30th-July 1st: Non-trad Kavanagh uploads one or two (since deleted) videos on YouTube attacking and libeling CathInfo and it's members:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991198/#msg991198
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991198/#msg991198)https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991266/#msg991266 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991266/#msg991266)
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991272/#msg991272 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991272/#msg991272)
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991290/#msg991290 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991290/#msg991290)
>July 4th: Non-trad Boru (who allegedly knows Kavanagh) registers and begins her attempts at subverting and undermining the Catholic Faith and Traditional movement
Incredible
Stop de-railing the thread with your childish obsession against Salza. You obviously care nothing for the seriousness of this issue. I joined Cathinfo hoping to get an update on the whereabouts of this Moran fellow as I have friends in the Resistance with children. I do not know Dr. Kavanagh personally, but as he was our son's teacher many years ago, the case immediately interested me especially when I witnessed the trauma Kavanagh's poor family was put through simply because they heroically confronted Bishop Morgan over sending them a laicized cleric found guilty of child abuse. As the forum offered some interesting topics, I have stayed. It's that simple. There is no conspiracy. So focus your attention on what really matters - children being put at risk.
-
Kavanagh only sporadically attended resistance Masses over the years.
And now attends the Novus Ordo.
This should tell everyone all they need to know.
This is nasty gossip about a family who have been put through hell. Shame on you.
-
This is nasty gossip about a family who have been put through hell. Shame on you.
Damned Modernist hypocrite. Shame on you for attempting to nullify Extraordinary Magisterium. Shame on you for pushing "consensus" theology. Shame on you for gender-bending.
-
The Theological Grades of Certainty
from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
by Ludwig Ott.
1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.
Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum," that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.
Report to moderator (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/imperfections-a-perspective/1/?action=reporttm;msg=1001030) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/ip.gif) Logged (https://www.cathinfo.com/helpadmin/?help=see_member_ip)
-
Stop de-railing the thread with your childish obsession against Salza. You obviously care nothing for the seriousness of this issue. I joined Cathinfo hoping to get an update on the whereabouts of this Moran fellow as I have friends in the Resistance with children. I do not know Dr. Kavanagh personally, but as he was our son's teacher many years ago, the case immediately interested me especially when I witnessed the trauma Kavanagh's poor family was put through simply because they heroically confronted Bishop Morgan over sending them a laicized cleric found guilty of child abuse. As the forum offered some interesting topics, I have stayed. It's that simple. There is no conspiracy. So focus your attention on what really matters - children being put at risk.
Whoza? Whatza? When have I ever mentioned Salza? You don't need to be Salza to be a subverter. I'm just noticing interesting coincidences :popcorn:
-
Is that what you are suggesting? That he deserves this?
Possibly yes. Maybe for other moral reasons.
I know one thing, that if you refuse to make the effort to attend Resistance Masses you will certainly be punished by God in some way or another.
-
To be honest, Boru, I have suspected all along that Viganò was the annointer of Moran but it is not up to us to speculate.
Should be easy enough to find out by ... asking Moran. I would think he'd have some paper attesting to it. Otherwise treat as positively doubtful. He wouldn't be first, nor will he be the last, that should be avoided on those grounds. I suspect it was +Williamson rather than +Vigano, since I don't believe Moran speak fluent Italian ... but it's curious that +Vigano said "WE" were decieved, as typically you don't have two individuals involved in a conditional.
Perhaps Moran pulled some crap like my children often tried with me. Child to me: "Dad, Mom said I could have a candy bar." Child to Mom: "Mom, Dad said I could have a candy bar." Well, yes, the second statement is true because Dad said the child could have it ... but mostly just because he thought that Mom had OKed it. Then Mom OKed it thinking that Dad had OKed it. Unless you have a chance to compare notes in detail, the child gets away with it. I suspect something like that may have occurred with this guy, and that's why "WE" (plural) were decieved. He may have gone back and forth somehow and worked a slightly more sophisticated version of this same con.
-
Possibly yes. Maybe for other moral reasons.
I know one thing, that if you refuse to make the effort to attend Resistance Masses you will certainly be punished by God in some way or another.
I believe you have just shown us the perfect example of a cult mentality.
-
So we have a new character "Dunstan", an admitted Conciliar Catholic, who by 'his' own admission is obsessed with Polish Catholics, comes out of nowhere and has a sudden interest in the Resistance and especially Bp Morgan. Very odd to say the least. Why take such an interest in a group with which you have no links. Have you ever even attended one of their Masses? Do you bear a grudge against Bp Morgan from when he was SSPX Superior in the UK? You state that you are 73 but also that you were in the Diocesan Vocations team. As what? A priest or potential seminarian, but you are too old for the latter? Who are these Polish Catholics you mention in the Resistance? I have asked around in England and only two Polish Catholics are known who go to Masses in the Resistance and neither of them know anybody who fits your description.
So who are you? Perhaps your mask will slip sooner or later as has Boru's. That poor person whether man or woman seems to forget half the time whether they are the lady from Hampshire, England with children and horses or the virulent and very masculine and abusive Dimond Brothers' hater. Perhaps he/she is a genuine schizophrenic? God help them and cure them.
-
Stop de-railing the thread with your childish obsession against Salza. You obviously care nothing for the seriousness of this issue. I joined Cathinfo hoping to get an update on the whereabouts of this Moran fellow as I have friends in the Resistance with children. I do not know Dr. Kavanagh personally, but as he was our son's teacher many years ago, the case immediately interested me especially when I witnessed the trauma Kavanagh's poor family was put through simply because they heroically confronted Bishop Morgan over sending them a laicized cleric found guilty of child abuse. As the forum offered some interesting topics, I have stayed. It's that simple. There is no conspiracy. So focus your attention on what really matters - children being put at risk.
I may not have all the facts but aren't you located in the UK? Shouldn't you be providing us with information, not the other way around? The police abuse of the Kavanaugh family doesn't seem to be a Resistance or even a Catholic problem. Everyday we Americans hear of another Brit who has been harassed by UK police over freedom of speech. Isn't this caused by Labour? I'm confused as to why you believe CathInfo can help with problems in your home country. We don't know these people. We aren't involved at all. Of course there is compassion for the victims but I wish you would be more specific as to what actions you want people on CathInfo to take.
-
I may not have all the facts but aren't you located in the UK? Shouldn't you be providing us with information, not the other way around? The police abuse of the Kavanaugh family doesn't seem to be a Resistance or even a Catholic problem. Everyday we Americans hear of another Brit who has been harassed by UK police over freedom of speech. Isn't this caused by Labour? I'm confused as to why you believe CathInfo can help with problems in your home country. We don't know these people. We aren't involved at all. Of course there is compassion for the victims but I wish you would be more specific as to what actions you want people on CathInfo to take.
No. I reside in Ireland. But I have friends in UK Resistance who have young children. I would like to know where this Moran fellow is now, why he is being protected, and WHY is he was put on a RESISTANCE Mass circuit both here in Ireland, and earlier this year in England. This is the crux of the matter. There are many CathInfo members who are from our side of the world. For those in the USA and elsewhere, it is important to be on your guard. This child abuser may be next sent to you.
-
So who are you? Perhaps your mask will slip sooner or later as has Boru's. That poor person whether man or woman seems to forget half the time whether they are the lady from Hampshire, England with children and horses or the virulent and very masculine and abusive Dimond Brothers' hater. Perhaps he/she is a genuine schizophrenic? God help them and cure them.
Yay, another fanboy! And a fresh newbie at that! Wait a minute... weren't you just attacking Dunstan for being a newbie....? The irony...
-
Oh my, wrong again!!!!!!!!!! I joined in March 2015, so NOT a newbie. Dunstan joined yesterday or the day before and you a month ago. You could have checked all this information yourself but chose not to.
-
No. I reside in Ireland. But I have friends in UK Resistance who have young children. I would like to know where this Moran fellow is now, why he is being protected, and WHY is he was put on a RESISTANCE Mass circuit both here in Ireland, and earlier this year in England. This is the crux of the matter. There are many CathInfo members who are from our side of the world. For those in the USA and elsewhere, it is important to be on your guard. This child abuser may be next sent to you.
So let me see if I understand you...you are NOT part of "Irish Resistance" but rather a concerned spectator who resides in Ireland? And your connection to this travesty is only through your UK Resistance friends, no direct impact? And you yourself don't have minor children or grandchildren that either have been impacted or might be impacted by Moran, correct? I'm really unclear what dog you have in this fight.
-
by a human organisation bereft of connection with the Holy Spirit.
He doesn't care about the kids....only destroying what he believes to be a false resistance. Where have we heard this before?
Have you ever met Fr. Hewko?
-
So who are you? Perhaps your mask will slip sooner or later as has Boru's. That poor person whether man or woman seems to forget half the time whether they are the lady from Hampshire, England with children and horses or the virulent and very masculine and abusive Dimond Brothers' hater. Perhaps he/she is a genuine schizophrenic? God help them and cure them.
Right. Boru has a busy life as a mother, housewife and horse tender, but she's posting on here all the time. :jester: What a joke.
-
Sorry. Under your name, Avis, is clearly says "newbie". Maybe you could get an SSPX Resistance bishop to re-ordain you a long-term contributor? These things are always possible. Keep smiling, mate! :-)
"newbie" has to do with number of posts, not the length of time of membership.
-
Kavanagh only sporadically attended resistance Masses over the years.
And now attends the Novus Ordo.
This should tell everyone all they need to know.
Despite the regularity of his Mass attendance,
Kav is a jew-tube show-biz trad.
His rustic trad chapel just happens to be a great stage and backdrop for musical performances.
And he has media power.
2 million subscribers... Is that accurate?
Diss him and he, can let the world know .
-
LOL as the young people like to say.
Go back through this thread and see how many Resistance contributors said exactly the same as me. The only difference is that I took the safeguarding issue to the official safeguarding agency, on Monday morning since nobody else could be flipping bothered to do so.
Imagine mistaking geography for apathy. Some of us simply don’t need to grandstand across continents to feel useful.
-
I didn't know Boru was a horse tender. If you need any further evidence to besmirch me, I admit I have four donkeys. I am just going out now to give them their evening feed.
Cheers. Such polite company here. A great pleasure knowing such fine company! Any comment on the child safeguarding questions, perchance? Or should we just forget all that and focus on denigrating contributors who we assume are hostile?
The UK has a massive, ongoing crisis in child protection caused by your Labour open immigration and policies. If that’s truly your concern, spend less time sermonizing on forums and more time demanding accountability there.
-
So let me see if I understand you...you are NOT part of "Irish Resistance" but rather a concerned spectator who resides in Ireland? And your connection to this travesty is only through your UK Resistance friends, no direct impact? And you yourself don't have minor children or grandchildren that either have been impacted or might be impacted by Moran, correct? I'm really unclear what dog you have in this fight.
Don't you think it would be healthier to direct your concern towards the Resistance bishops who put a child abuser on the Resistance circuit?
My dog in this fight is not only my GOD-CHILD who was put at risk, but every other child who was put at risk and still could be put at risk. Many of these families are my friends. You seem to have no connection to this side of the world so it's perhaps hard for you to relate to, but nevertheless, it's to no advantage to anyone attacking those who do care and do have a connection. May I ask, is defending your corner more important to you than protecting children and families?
-
No. I reside in Ireland. But I have friends in UK Resistance who have young children. I would like to know where this Moran fellow is now, why he is being protected, and WHY is he was put on a RESISTANCE Mass circuit both here in Ireland, and earlier this year in England. This is the crux of the matter. There are many CathInfo members who are from our side of the world. For those in the USA and elsewhere, it is important to be on your guard. This child abuser may be next sent to you.
As I have already tried to tell everyone, Boru is lying about residing in Ireland. It is clear from the times of day that she consistently starts posting and ends posting on Cathinfo that she resides in the North, South or Central America.
If she lived in Ireland, she would be staying up until 3am almost every night arguing about Charlie Kirk (or whatever) while her husband is in bed. And besides making it very difficult to attend Mass on Sunday morning, she'd would be sleeping in when the dogs need to be let out and the horses need to be fed. And she always starts posting at around noon Ireland time. Never before noon.
Look at Boru's posting history to confirm what I say.
As an example, see below. The time of day in the Cathinfo post below is Central Daylight Time. Ireland time is 6 hours earlier than CDT. Boru was saying that she was going to bed at 2:27 AM (if she really lived in Ireland) because "it's late and we've got Mass tomorrow." Um...yes it would be quite late, actually "early" the next day which is not TOMORROW for someone living in IRELAND.
SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / Re: Universal doubtful intention (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/universal-doubtful-intention/msg996123/#msg996123)
« on: August 16, 2025, 08:27:12 PM » [IRELAND TIME August 17, 2025, 2:27 AM]
Sorry everyone, its late and we've got Mass tomorrow so I must bid you adieu. Thank you for all your posts; I've learnt and re-learnt quite a lot and I must say, it teaches one to really think. And its really nice when everybody is civil without all the name-calling. Good-night for now and God bless.
-
As I have already tried to tell everyone, Boru is lying about residing in Ireland. It is clear from the times of day that she consistently starts posting and ends posting on Cathinfo that she resides in the North, South or Central America.
If she lived in Ireland, she would be staying up until 3am almost every night arguing about Charlie Kirk (or whatever) while her husband is in bed. And besides making it very difficult to attend Mass on Sunday morning, she'd would be sleeping in when the dogs need to be let out and the horses need to be fed. And she always starts posting at around noon Ireland time. Never before noon.
Look at Boru's posting history to confirm what I say.
As an example, see below. The time of day in the Cathinfo post below is Central Daylight Time. Ireland time is 6 hours earlier than CDT. Boru was saying that she was going to bed at 2:27 AM (if she really lived in Ireland) because "it's late and we've got Mass tomorrow."
SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / Re: Universal doubtful intention (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/universal-doubtful-intention/msg996123/#msg996123)
« on: August 16, 2025, 08:27:12 PM » [IRELAND TIME August 17, 2025, 2:27 AM]
Sorry everyone, its late and we've got Mass tomorrow so I must bid you adieu. Thank you for all your posts; I've learnt and re-learnt quite a lot and I must say, it teaches one to really think. And its really nice when everybody is civil without all the name-calling. Good-night for now and God bless.
Maybe she’s a night owl? My aunt used to stay up till 2am and do the housework crazy woman. She had a nap in the afternoon. Not my style but what has Boru’s daily routine got to do with what this thread is about? That is: Safeguarding children.
-
I didn't know Boru was a horse tender. If you need any further evidence to besmirch me, I admit I have four donkeys. I am just going out now to give them their evening feed.
Cheers. Such polite company here. A great pleasure knowing such fine company! Any comment on the child safeguarding questions, perchance? Or should we just forget all that and focus on denigrating contributors who we assume are hostile?
What do you want us to do? We don’t live in your country? I know ZERO about the resistance in Europe. Have never met any clerics. I don’t even know who the people are involved.
I do know the piano guy from YouTube, since 10 yrs ago. Never knew he was even a Catholic. All we’ve heard is HIS SIDE of the story. We’ve not heard the Resistance side. Just because there’s accusations of child abuse doesn’t mean I’m going to believe it.
-
Maybe she’s a night owl? My aunt used to stay up till 2am and do the housework crazy woman. She had a nap in the afternoon. Not my style but what has Boru’s daily routine got to do with what this thread is about? That is: Safeguarding children.
As I showed in my post, she announces at supposedly 2:24 AM Ireland time that "it's late" and she and her husband have to go to Mass "TOMORROW." It was already Tomorrow for her if she lived in Ireland. It was 2:24am on Sunday already.
And her posting at 2-3 in the morning is a consistent occurrence. Almost every day. And she says she takes care of "dogs and horses." Those animals wake up with the sun.
What this has to do with this thread is that Boru introduced herself on this thread, as others have. Others with an apparent axe to grind. And others that are probably not being truthful, just as Boru is not truthful.
-
Don't you think it would be healthier to direct your concern towards the Resistance bishops who put a child abuser on the Resistance circuit?
My dog in this fight is not only my GOD-CHILD who was put at risk, but every other child who was put at risk and still could be put at risk. Many of these families are my friends. You seem to have no connection to this side of the world so it's perhaps hard for you to relate to, but nevertheless, it's to no advantage to anyone attacking those who do care and do have a connection. May I ask, is defending your corner more important to you than protecting children and families?
You misunderstand. It's not that I don't care about the safety of children. It's that I don't care about your performative outrage. Take your antifa kabuki theater somewhere else.
-
You misunderstand. It's not that I don't care about the safety of children. It's that I don't care about your performative outrage. Take your antifa kabuki theater somewhere else.
This is a thread about safe-guarding children. You are free to go to another thread if my concern bothers you that much.
-
This is a thread about safe-guarding children. You are free to go to another thread if my concern bothers you that much.
Below is Boru's very first post. Note how much time she spends talking about "canonical" things and using inside baseball words like "liacised" and ordination "validity." All the while, she's just a little homeschool mom in Ireland who takes care of dogs and horses and her husband, while staying up at all hours of the night posting on Internet forums.
And, of course, the elephant in the room, the suggestions of impropriety by Moran, Williamson, Vigano. Which is very much the focus of her comments in that FIRST post. In other words, Boru is obsessed with "who is to blame," not with "safe-guarding children."
If "safe-guarding children" was her main concern, why would she even bring up all the canonical stuff? Why not just say the "Moran has a history. Be careful with your children." and leave it at that? Why did she feel the need IN HER VERY FIRST POST on Cathinfo, to launch into a canonical witch trial to find the episcopal culprits in the Resistance who were purportedly behind the Moran "ordination."
Her evidence of Moran's guilt is that "an innocent man, who cared about the faithful, would never insert himself into the homes of young children until he name about been formerly cleared." What if the accusation was false? How is the man going to clear himself of a (possibly) false accusation when the accusers are NuChurch fake priests themselves?
Remember, Jesus was accused of things too. Did his refusal to "clear himself" prove that he was guilty?
426
SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / Re: Man arrested for email (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991806/#msg991806)
« on: July 05, 2025, 04:02:46 PM »
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 (https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)
The above article may answer a number questions raised here on this forum with regards to the back ground of Mr. Kerry Michael Moran ('Fr. Fake' as Dr. Kavanagh calls him). Respectfully I address him as Mr. given that he was officially laicized as a deacon and as far I understand, can only be canonically reinstated to the clerical state with a special dispensation from the Holy See. This of course brings into question the validly of his alleged ordination, especially as he was laicised only last year (June 2024) and yet presented himself as an ordained pries less than a year later. Again, I use the word alleged, because it is shrouded in secrecy; no one knows who ordained him, when he was ordained, or whether he is simply claiming to be ordained. Perhaps, and I am speculating, this is what His Grace Archbishop Vigano was alluding to when he said himself and His Lordship Bishop Williamson had been deceived. What is certain is that this Mr. Moran has a long recorded history of being moved from place to place due to inappropriate behavior with minors. And as a Ladislaus outlined earlier, an innocent man, who cared about the faithful, would never insert himself into the homes of young children until he name about been formerly cleared.
-
As usual, you focus on the substantive issue here, the "crux of the matter", unlike the paranoids who want to keep driving the narrative of "who are these outsiders coming in here asking questions...?" A fresh eye on the situation is very suspicious, isn't it, brothers and sisters!
I don't reside in UK either, to be clear. When I have talked about East Kent (Folkestone and Broadstairs are very much in my past) I spoke from close knowledge of the Catholic Church and other groupings in that area. I have been in the Archdiocese of Southwark vocations process - as I explained here - and I have also experience in a traditional monastic community in France. Nobody in this comment board is expected to provide a CV and a real name, but the disgusting inquisition-type smears by some commenters of anyone who enters this discussion are quite uncalled for! They betray a closed mentality worthy only of a sect.
I am in touch with the Catholic safeguarding agency (as I mentioned yesterday) and the business of Resistance bishops putting the public at risk is my main concern. As it is the concern of many who have written in this conversation from within the Resistance. if you don't share that worry, you are not a member of any ecclesial grouping I would ever want to respect. Mr Kavanagh's children (all under 14) were put at risk, as Moran was given them to make their confessions in a private session. A sex offender! And I will say something else, as a compassionate Christian who recognises we are all fallen human beings:
Kerry Michael (Ciaran) Moran has been failed by the SSPX Resistance bishop who ordained him - as much as the faithful have been failed by being put at risk - because whichever bishop it was (+Ballini, +Morgan, or most likely +Viganò?) Mr Moran was falsely encouraged in his priestly delusions and also strengthened in his continued deviant lifestyle by poor shepherding, fatal lack of spiritual direction, and probably a desperate institutional need to accept anyone - regardless of suitability - by a human organisation bereft of connection with the Holy Spirit.
But who am I to judge?
So you're not British and you dont live in Britain but you chose to get involved in this because you lived in Kent many years ago. Are there not enough safeguarding concerns in your Conciliar Church to keep you busy? Of course, you have another ax to grind. Heaven help you. Just stick to donkey keeping. Im sure the donkeys will listen to you.
-
From the heart, and well expressed Boru. I begin to wonder whether it is worth responding to the trolling that has emerged in these recent posts, a lot of it aimed at you. It is clear that the failures of episcopal oversight have dismayed many, and when we call it out it hits a raw nerve. Maybe we should not intrude further on these people's grief? They've seen that their episcopal idols have feet of clay. But remain in denial.
Again, take note the focus of the newbie's posts: "the failures of episcopal oversight." These people are plants to blacken the reputation of the Resistance bishops.
Dunstan and Boru, go away. People see through your lies. If you really care about the failures of episcopal oversight there is plenty of that in your beloved Novus Ordo.
-
Don't you think it would be healthier to direct your concern towards the Resistance bishops who put a child abuser on the Resistance circuit?
My dog in this fight is not only my GOD-CHILD who was put at risk, but every other child who was put at risk and still could be put at risk. Many of these families are my friends. You seem to have no connection to this side of the world so it's perhaps hard for you to relate to, but nevertheless, it's to no advantage to anyone attacking those who do care and do have a connection. May I ask, is defending your corner more important to you than protecting children and families?
And here is another example, just from today of Boru's true focus. It is "the Resistance bishops" as a group, who she says put "a child abuser" on the Resistance circuit. Again, her focus is not on Moran himself. But on the Resistance bishops.
And of course she is all about "children and families." But she claims to attend the SSPX (probably false), whose own bishops have definitely "put a child abuser" or ten on the SSPX circuit over the years.
And those "child abusers" in the SSPX have confessed their guilt in courts of law and served time in prison. One was the district superior in the USA about a decade ago. But Boru has never mentioned any outrage over such lack of "oversight" in the SSPX. Quite a double standard, eh?
-
You are absolutely right. There are failures everywhere. If you were payng attention in your first Catechism class, this was probably mentioned. In this case, we are discussing it because we know the people concerned. If you don't know them, maybe it's of no interest to you (personally), but as the Christian faithful have usually supported their fellow Christian faithful - over 2000 years - what is NOT unusual is solidarity with those who have been hurt. OK? Argue with that, mate.
You are a joke. Starting with your cute signature line and your profile avatar. It must have taken you quite a bit of time to come up with that persona. Did you plan to spend a lot of time on Cathinfo? Do you have anything in common with the people here?
But you just had to come online and re-ignite a thread that had died pretty much died down. You come in with a "personal" story as someone from the UK with connections to the Polish resistance in the UK. Then you gradually reveal that you live in Rome and don't attend Mass in the UK.
Your deception is so transparent. Your closing words in your very FIRST post:
I reach out to my fellow Catholics in the Polish community who are involved in SSPX Resistance, and I feel your pain. Yopu have been disgracefully served by your bishop and deserve an explanation.
It is clear that the person at the centre of this horrible story was either ordained priest (after his Catholic dismissal) by +Morgan, or +Viganò, or +Ballini, so one of them needs to have the thuribles to own up!
Be gone, Satan, the father of lies.
-
The constant trolling of people whose views some sect members dislike is very irritating, but more interesting is the failure to address the child safeguarding issues. You are complicit in the safeguarding failure when you deride the people who take it seriously.
My article on this whole dismal episode will appear on a Catholic website very soon. www.wherepeteris.com
I thank those members of SSPX Resistance here who have admitted there is a safeguarding problem. The general atmosphere of the discussion earlier on the thread showed a responsibility I will credit in my article. (The rages of the trolls are not very interesting and I won't mention them. You get trolls everywhere!)
My name is Gareth Thomas Weaver and everyrhing I have said about my own background in response to challenges was true. I am an ex-traditional Catholic and these safeguarding failures are a disgrace.
This guy is clearly a plant. Here is what he wrote about the false prophet, Bergoglio:
Laudato Si’ finally won my heart and intellect to Pope Francis
By Gareth Thomas Weaver
As convert I have lived in the Catholic Church under three popes during three decades. I gave my unquestioning obedience to John Paul II and Benedict XVI; and then I regrettably spent the initial years of Pope Francis’s pontificate in rebellion, aligned with people who I took far too long to recognize were in radical error. I had brought with me from my Anglican faith a strong devotion to the mystical poverty of the saints of Assisi, so it was Laudato Si which finally won my heart and intellect to Pope Francis’s spiritual and temporal project. As a lifelong traveller on the roads to Compostela, about which I have written for WPI, I now understand my Catholic re-conversion under the shepherding of Pope Francis to be a pilgrimage. He was there on the road ahead of me a long while. I obstinately kept my distance, preferring the fun of walking with a bunch of people who didn’t care about the destination but enjoyed the banter on the road. Then gradually — out of curiosity perhaps — I struck out alone and drew nearer to him. Then I recognised in him all the signs of the true Shepherd and I walked alongside him with a sure step. Now his physical leadership has been taken from us, I guess the first lesson I have learned is to give my obedience to his successor from Day 1.
-
Yes, I have gone thank you. (See above.) And the moderation here - by the way - is marginally as bad as the episcopal oversight! Boom boom...
Liar! In your first post, you posed as a "mainstream" Catholic who was "open to all expressions of the traditional Catholic faith." But you actually worship Bergoglio and his Laudato Si form of Counterfeit Catholicism. And you write articles for one of the most liberal, pro-false-Rome online rags: Wherepeteris.com
You feigned concern for the UK "connections" of yours and especially Brendan Kavanauh. Who hired you for your infiltration efforts? Are you on the same payroll as Bore U?
I have a connection with the Polish Catholic community in Folkestone who attend the regular Polish Mass at Our Lady Help of Christians. I am also aware of an SSPX Resistance group of Polish Catholics in East Kent (centred in Broadstairs) and know some individuals. All through my life since my father - God rest his Catholic soul - was in the RAF generation that saved England from the nαzιs I have appreciated the Polish RAF contribution in the turning point Battle of Britain in 1940. Although I remain in the Catholic mainstream in the Southwark Archdiocese I am open to all expressions of traditional Catholic faith. My model is the Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan (d.988) and all in Kent know the legend of Dunstan grabbing the devil by the nose with his blacksmith's tongs in his forge!
The horrifying incident that the Kavanagh family experienced (i.e. being sent a priest by +Morgan of SSPX Resistance - a priest who was verifiably laicised in Martinique when a deacon, as shown in the Chancellor's emails from that diocese) was further compounded by +Morgan's response: to have the couple arrested over alleged "angry emails" by a convoy of three police cars, and handcuffed in front of their children. A civil complaint against the police has now been launched. What has not been launched is +Morgan's explanation. Why did he respond to a safeguarding alert by having the complainants arrested?
Reading this thread, I am so heartened to read the responses of so many supporting Brendan Kavanagh (the arrested father of the family) who is now launching a civil action against the police. When that action reaches the courts, the response of +Morgan to the family's correct safeguarding complaint will be the main focus, not the doctrinal niceties of this or that SSPX grouping, and the incense will hit the fan (to put it politely!) The fact that +Morgan has made no public statement is disappointing. I reach out to my fellow Catholics in the Polish community who are involved in SSPX Resistance, and I feel your pain. Yopu have been disgracefully served by your bishop and deserve an explanation.
It is clear that the person at the centre of this horrible story was either ordained priest (after his Catholic dismissal) by +Morgan, or +Viganò, or +Ballini, so one of them needs to have the thuribles to own up!
-
but more interesting is the failure to address the child safeguarding issues. You are complicit in the safeguarding failure when you deride the people who take it seriously.
1. You 'beg the question' that there are issues. Nothing has been proven. An allegation isn't proof.
2. Innocent until proven guilty -- at least that's an American concept of justice. Maybe in Britain it's guilty, then innocent? Sure seems that's your view.
-
1. You 'beg the question' that there are issues. Nothing has been proven. An allegation isn't proof.
2. Innocent until proven guilty -- at least that's an American concept of justice. Maybe in Britain it's guilty, then innocent? Sure seems that's your view.
Pax, to get an idea of who you are really talking to, see his writings:
https://wherepeteris.com/author/gareth-thomas-weaver/
https://equusasinus.net
-
1. You 'beg the question' that there are issues. Nothing has been proven. An allegation isn't proof.
2. Innocent until proven guilty -- at least that's an American concept of justice. Maybe in Britain it's guilty, then innocent? Sure seems that's your view.
An allegation against a priest that's saying a public mass, is enough to warrant him being removed from the circuit, whilst investigations are ongoing. Yet there is no evidence of any investigation.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Would you hire an alleged alcoholic to work in your bar? Of course not.
Especially in trad circles where silence, cover ups, payoffs and transfers to new a chapel where no one knows the prior history, is the norm.
Saint Peter Damian, Brandano da Petroio and Savonarola had no problem speaking publicly and forcefully about the sɛҳuąƖ sins of men of the Church. That's what we need right now as canon law isn't cutting it.
-
Pax, to get an idea of who you are really talking to, see his writings:
https://wherepeteris.com/author/gareth-thomas-weaver/
https://equusasinus.net
Maybe one should question why a novos ordo Catholic is having to do the investigation that should have been done months ago in the Resistance.
-
Thank you, Twice dyed. It's good that you take the trouble to welcome a newcomer, unlike some who are immediately suspicious that people take the trouble to join the discussion! (But that's the usual rudeness of the internet. isn't it?)
P.S. Yes indeed Saint Dunstan pray for us. He is patron of the blind and was a great & wise counsellor to three Saxon kings. As Archbishop of Canterbury he was known for holiness and practising his trademark passion of working iron in a blacksmiths forge!
Hospitality is the flower of Charity.
Or: Actions speak louder than words.
So, what I learned yesterday ( from yesterday's post-) was that + Vigano cut himself off from the Resistance, basically another black eye for Trad Ilk .
Pray.
-
Will Gareth Weaver aka Dunstan's partner in crime, Boru now unmask him/herself?
How did Weaver even find out about all this? Who put him on to it? Boru or Piano Man ? God will not be mocked and the truth will come out.
Let us remember in our prayers all the combatants for the truth on here like Angelus who smoked out this wicked individual with a clear agenda.
-
An allegation against a priest that's saying a public mass, is enough to warrant him being removed from the circuit, whilst investigations are ongoing.
An allegation is a 'he said, she said' situation. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how canon law works. Rushing to judgement is female hysteria and emotion.
-
Pax, to get an idea of who you are really talking to, see his writings:
https://wherepeteris.com/author/gareth-thomas-weaver/
https://equusasinus.net
Got it. Just another round of content farming for the next blog hit piece: “Evil Trads Don’t Care About the Children.”
-
Has anyone seen this?
https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/defrocked-deacon-offering-illicit-masses/
-
Gareth/Dunstan, before you leave would you like to tell us who put you on to this story? You have been open about your name, so please be open about this.
-
We've really had a "British Invasion" lately -- Boru, Justinian, Dunstan, Godefroy.
-
Has anyone seen this?
https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/defrocked-deacon-offering-illicit-masses/
Yes, we have seen it. This thread has been around a long time. What it comes down to is that Moran was "convicted" of a spiritual crime against the Sixth Commandment by WHOM? By the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024. This is headed up by Tucho Fernandez, a disciple of Bergoglio. The same people who push Pachamama, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couple blessings, and say God wills the diversity of religions convicted Moran of a spiritual crime. Meditate on that for a moment.
On the other hand, we have a few Resistance bishops who might think either that the Counterfeit Vatican charges do not hold water, or maybe they are still trying to get to the bottom of it. But to fault the Resistance bishops for not automatically following the lead of Tucho Fernandez in moral cases is a ridiculous stance for a traditional Catholic.
So who are you going to trust? False prophets in the Vatican or traditional Resistance bishops?
And whatever Moran did, it was not a crime according to the authorities in the country of Martinique, which is an overseas department of France and uses the same laws that France does. Otherwise, he would have been extradited for trial.
What might it consist of? Well I am familiar with a young priest who was laicized because he asked probing questions of a teenager in a mass confession ceremony for high school kids about to be Confirmed. It as his first year after ordination. The teenager did not know what to confess and asked the priest for help. The poorly-trained priest asked "have you ever done this or that." The parents complained to the bishop. He was removed from his position and excommunicated by the Vatican because he refused to participate in the canonical trial. So who knows what Moran was accused of? But whatever it was, he, apparently, did not break the laws of Martinique/France.
-
Again, Dunstan (and all you Brits), why are you here, asking us about the Resistance in Britain? This site isn't a forum for Resistance clerics. Especially not those for Britain. So why come here and complain about us "not doing anything"? What are we supposed to do? Take off of work, fly over to England and do a Sherlock Holmes impersonation, looking for clues?
-
Certainly Avis, and I am impressed by your sudden return to civility after your earlier insults, so thank you for that. i will be completely open.
I am a Catholic who was formerly part of a traditional monastic community in France which was ripped apart by sɛҳuąƖ deviancy among the leadership and I returned to mainstream Catholicism, spending a long time in reflection in the rigorous Carthusian regime of Parkminster, Sussex. (The "Foreign Legion of the monastic life" as some have called it, too dramatically in my view: it's a bit boring but tough.) I was then sent to the Beda College in Rome to study for the priesthood. A great experience but I am stupid and could not understand philosophy - the groundwork for theology - and I didn't feel called to be a priest anyway. I just felt inspired by the life of Saint Francis to love my fellow man and obey God. I ended up as a Geography teacher and now at 73 I am retired and live a solitary life with four donkeys.
I write for wherepeteris.com as a regular writer and I enjoy observing Catholic life in its many forms.
Who "put me on to this story?" you ask. The "boogy woogy" pianist Dr K is a YouTube phenomenon. I simply saw his videos from time to time, usually over breakast before mucking out my donkey stable. Once there was a contemplative nun changing trains, and she stopped to play Brendan's piano.
https://youtu.be/AnZDjVTUHXo?si=g6LrItHnFI2sQ3lj
She probably "put me onto this story" (since you ask) because the YouTube algorithms next delivered Brendan Kavanagh's video of his arrest, and showed me the failures of +Morgan and the leadership of SSPX Resistance. I was appalled.
There you have it, Avis, from one newbie to another. Goodnight and God bless.
If you joined Cathinfo so innocently, why did you lie about your current "openness to traditional Catholicism" in your first post? Why didn't you state that by resisting Bergoglio and his mini-me Prevost, we were in schism? That is what you really believe isn't it? Why did you play the "concerned citizen" who protects the children in a country you left decades ago?
Why? Because you were doing research for your Wherepeteris.com article. You will be paid for that article, won't you? You were trying to deceive traditional Catholics on this site to get responses so that you could publish on your notes to the echo chamber filled with those who "do not love the truth but consent to iniquity" (2 Thessalonians 2).
You just innocently stumbled across Dr. K's YouTube and got concerned about all the little ones being molested in the Resistance chapel in the UK?
Why don't you just quit lying? It is still a sin in the real Catholic Church, you know?
-
Has anyone seen this?
https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/defrocked-deacon-offering-illicit-masses/
I hadn't seen it, thank you Justinian.
Seems to be an American publication. Good. The American people need to be warned. If Moran was happy to integrate on the Resistance Irish circuit and then the English circuit - even after the Bishop of Derry (Northern Ireland) had exposed his background - then its possible that Moran may turn up in other countries to avoid detection. For all the denials, it is clear that Bp Morgan knew of Moran's background and yet, to date, has STILL made no public statement to explain why he allowed a man, with these accusations hanging over him, to mingle among families who depend so much on their small circle of Resistance priests.
Moran was only laicised as a Novus Order deacon on June 2024. Yet, less than three months later, Bp Ballini has him on the circuit preaching to Traditional Catholics in Ireland. This in itself is extremely odd.
There is also the background details supplied by the Bishop of Derry: https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695
There is also the fact that numerous families have left the Resistance to re-join SSPX chapels because of this scandal.
(https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)Again, I stress, if there is no truth to what this Moran has been accused of for the past twenty years (he has a history), then why doesn't Bp. Morgan make a public statement clarifying everything? If there is nothing to hide, why hide?
-
Ok, so the "British Invasion" is a bunch of V2-loving, paid article writers. :facepalm:
-
Yes, we have seen it. This thread has been around a long time. What it comes down to is that Moran was "convicted" of a spiritual crime against the Sixth Commandment by WHOM? By the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024. This is headed up by Tucho Fernandez, a disciple of Bergoglio. The same people who push Pachamama, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couple blessings, and say God wills the diversity of religions convicted Moran of a spiritual crime. Meditate on that for a moment.
On the other hand, we have a few Resistance bishops who might think either that the Counterfeit Vatican charges do not hold water, or maybe they are still trying to get to the bottom of it. But to fault the Resistance bishops for not automatically following the lead of Tucho Fernandez in moral cases is a ridiculous stance for a traditional Catholic.
So who are you going to trust? False prophets in the Vatican or traditional Resistance bishops?
And whatever Moran did, it was not a crime according to the authorities in the country of Martinique, which is an overseas department of France and uses the same laws that France does. Otherwise, he would have been extradited for trial.
What might it consist of? Well I am familiar with a young priest who was laicized because he asked probing questions of a teenager in a mass confession ceremony for high school kids about to be Confirmed. It as his first year after ordination. The teenager did not know what to confess and asked the priest for help. The poorly-trained priest asked "have you ever done this or that." The parents complained to the bishop. He was removed from his position and excommunicated by the Vatican because he refused to participate in the canonical trial. So who knows what Moran was accused of? But whatever it was, he, apparently, did not break the laws of Martinique/France.
Stop deflecting. We know there are sɛҳuąƖ abusers in the Novus Ordo. And in the SSPX. That doesn’t exonerate resistance bishops for covering up and enabling abusers. I thought resistance were holding themselves up to a higher standard? It would seem not.
The age of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ consent in Martinique is 15 years old. This may explain why no criminal charges were incurred against the priest in question. Unless of course the family of the minor decided for their own reasons not to press charges.
-
Maybe one should question why a novos ordo Catholic is having to do the investigation that should have been done months ago in the Resistance.
Excellent point… exactly.
-
We've really had a "British Invasion" lately -- Boru, Justinian, Dunstan, Godefroy.
Would you prefer John, Paul, George and Ringo?
-
We've really had a "British Invasion" lately -- Boru, Justinian, Dunstan, Godefroy.
Is this group only for Americans then? 😉
-
Would you prefer John, Paul, George and Ringo?
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
-
Certainly Avis, and I am impressed by your sudden return to civility after your earlier insults, so thank you for that. i will be completely open.
I am a Catholic who was formerly part of a traditional monastic community in France which was ripped apart by sɛҳuąƖ deviancy among the leadership and I returned to mainstream Catholicism, spending a long time in reflection in the rigorous Carthusian regime of Parkminster, Sussex. (The "Foreign Legion of the monastic life" as some have called it, too dramatically in my view: it's a bit boring but tough.) I was then sent to the Beda College in Rome to study for the priesthood. A great experience but I am stupid and could not understand philosophy - the groundwork for theology - and I didn't feel called to be a priest anyway. I just felt inspired by the life of Saint Francis to love my fellow man and obey God. I ended up as a Geography teacher and now at 73 I am retired and live a solitary life with four donkeys.
I write for wherepeteris.com as a regular writer and I enjoy observing Catholic life in its many forms.
Who "put me on to this story?" you ask. The "boogy woogy" pianist Dr K is a YouTube phenomenon. I simply saw his videos from time to time, usually over breakast before mucking out my donkey stable. Once there was a contemplative nun changing trains, and she stopped to play Brendan's piano.
https://youtu.be/AnZDjVTUHXo?si=g6LrItHnFI2sQ3lj
She probably "put me onto this story" (since you ask) because the YouTube algorithms next delivered Brendan Kavanagh's video of his arrest, and showed me the failures of +Morgan and the leadership of SSPX Resistance. I was appalled.
There you have it, Avis, from one newbie to another. Goodnight and God bless.
Thank you your charity and humility and I’m sorry you had that experience at the monastery in France. I will look out for your article when it is published. Despite a few trolls it does seem as if most people on this thread are rightly concerned about the serious safeguarding mission the IK and Ireland resistance group. God bless.
-
She probably "put me onto this story" (since you ask) because the YouTube algorithms next delivered Brendan Kavanagh's video of his arrest, and showed me the failures of +Morgan and the leadership of SSPX Resistance. I was appalled.
You're a newbie all right, if not a complete LARPer. Are you pretending to be someone?
You seem to think there is a "leadership" of the SSPX Resistance. That sounds like a previous member I had to repeatedly ban. What are the chances that two DIFFERENT people could hold the same peculiar, unfounded, unlikely error? -- that's not highly likely. It's more likely you're LARPing as a new character in some kind of live fiction.
Everyone knows, and criticized Bp. Williamson for, the fact that the Resistance is a "loose association of independent priests and bishops". This is not the Conciliar Church. This is not the SSPX with its hierarchy. The Resistance is very much a loose association, where every cleric has his own apostolate in his own part(s) of a certain country or two.
We can argue whether that is a good or bad thing, or in-between, but we can't argue about the FACT of what the Resistance is, in reality.
I am hesitant to believe two individuals in the world believe this delusion, this objectively wrong error. It would be like a member of CathInfo getting banned for saying Donald Trump is a space alien, then a month later someone joins and starts spouting the same belief. A belief so crazy, so unlikely, can only be held by ONE person. No two minds can be so peculiarly broken, so defective, in such a specific way. It would be like 2 different vases breaking into *precisely* the same number & shape of pieces, after being dropped from a table. It simply doesn't happen in the real world.
-
asking why could a man who had been defrocked and prosecuted for child abuse be ordained by a bishop of the SSPX Resistance.
WHY WOULD ANYBODY ON THIS SITE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS? I don't get it. None of us are clerics. None of us live in Britain.
You're like a person who takes his bicycle to an automotive shop and gets angry they can't answer questions about bicycles. :fryingpan:
-
I am having a problem with internet, so excuse the lack of organization.
Who was this priest charged for s*x assaults in 2022? Is this is separate incident? Arch Macaire's diocese had a few bad actors, it seems.
A priest in his fifties...
M0ran was ordained a deacon Aug. 26, 2017 ( May?)
Trial opened July 19, 2022
Conviction confirmed by the Dicastery of Doctrine? April 24, 2024
Dismissed Feb (?) 6, 2024
Helping out the Resistance since summer 2024, Ireland etc.
Unofficial!
Excerpts...from a radio interview?
*****************
Monsignor Macaire reacts after the indictment of a priest of the diocese for rape on minor
By Elodie Soupama and Jessica Dantin 04/12/2022 - 12:50 Updated on 05/12/2022 - 12:22
After the Diocese of Martinique reported a priest to the prosecutor's office in Fort-de-France for acts of sɛҳuąƖ violence, Monseigneur David Macaire spoke on this subject in our 7 a.m. edition.
*****
From an earlier post in Members only.
The dates are coincidence!??
Moran was a Deacon.
-
[Blah blah blah]
(https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)Again, I stress, if there is no truth to what this Moran has been accused of for the past twenty years (he has a history), then why doesn't Bp. Morgan make a public statement clarifying everything? If there is nothing to hide, why hide?
Indeed Boru, if one has nothing to hide why hide?.
Why are you hiding/lying about currently residing in Ireland, when everyone who has a brain can figure out that cannot be true. But you make no "public statement clarifying everything." Did you know that lying (a sin against the Eighth Commandment) can be a mortal sin just as significant in the eyes of God as sins against the Sixth Commandment?
-
You say "British invasion", but as these people are all brand-new to CathInfo we absolutely have to suspect each of them of LARPing. They could all be the same person!
Creative writing and role playing is not impossible, you know. You can even be clever and keep your stories (and personas) straight.
-
Ok, Dunstan1488 was banned. He "flamed out" (went out in an outburst -- the kind of outburst where he ends it with, "And you can't fire me, because I QUIT!") As if he can pre-empt my banning of him by making it his idea. Sorry bub. You got banned in disgrace. And all your posts deleted.
He claims to be a good guy, after the public good, the good of the Church, etc. etc. and YET -- he lies, he hides, he deceives.
For his small number of posts, he used no less than 8 different IP addresses -- and not in the same block, either. Not like when your Internet provider gives you a "dynamic IP" which changes every day -- that is perfectly normal. These IPs were WILDLY different. He's hiding something. Crafty, sneaking, like a snake. Using a VPN to hide his identity. Basically wearing a hoodie and a mask, to cloak his identity. REEEEAL respectable and holy behavior, that.
Don't you just feel compelled to trust someone who hides behind a mask?
-
Stop deflecting. We know there are sɛҳuąƖ abusers in the Novus Ordo. And in the SSPX. That doesn’t exonerate resistance bishops for covering up and enabling abusers. I thought resistance were holding themselves up to a higher standard? It would seem not.
The age of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ consent in Martinique is 15 years old. This may explain why no criminal charges were incurred against the priest in question. Unless of course the family of the minor decided for their own reasons not to press charges.
First, we are told he was convicted of a spiritual crime against the Sixth Commandment, not any civil crime. You are jumping to conclusions about that with zero evidence.
Second, who said anything about "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ consent" in the spiritual crime charges. You are again assuming more than you have evidence for.
Third, as I said, the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is full of antichrists, who themselves punish the good and reward the evil in plain sight. Why would any traditional Catholic trust that their conviction would be just in the eyes of God? Bergoglio has protected his buddy Zanchetta for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Oscar_Zanchetta
Nothing is known of canonical proceedings against Zanchetta. Pope Francis had indicated in May 2019 that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith) (CDF) would start its own trial soon. The CDF does not reveal its findings while issues remain unresolved in other courts.
In 2025 Argentine judges rejected an appeal against his conviction for sɛҳuąƖ abuse of seminarians. Despite his criminal conviction, Zanchetta has faced no known disciplinary measures from Church authorities raising criticism from local Catholics and drawing international attention because of Pope Francis’ personal involvement in the case.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Oscar_Zanchetta#cite_note-31)
-
First, we are told he was convicted of a spiritual crime against the Sixth Commandment, not any civil crime. You are jumping to conclusions about that with zero evidence.
Second, who said anything about "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ consent" in the spiritual crime charges. You are again assuming more than you have evidence for.
Third, as I said, the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is full of antichrists, who themselves punish the good and reward the evil in plain sight. Why would any traditional Catholic trust that their conviction would be just in the eyes of God? Bergoglio has protected his buddy Zanchetta for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Oscar_Zanchetta
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Oscar_Zanchetta#cite_note-31)
‘Acts contrary to the 6th commandment with a minor’. Where did you get ‘spiritual’ from? Please improve your reading comprehension skills.
From the article:
’I would like to inform you that Kerry Michael Moran, incardinated and ordained deacon in the diocese of Fort-de-France (Martinique) on 26/08/2017, was dismissed from the clerical state on 6/02/2024 following a criminal trial opened on 19/07/22 at the request of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Kerry Moran was found guilty of acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor (c. 1398 §1, 1° CIC; art., 1° SST), a conviction confirmed by letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on April 24 2024.’
-
‘Acts contrary to the 6th commandment with a minor’. Where did you get ‘spiritual’ from? Please improve your reading comprehension skills.
From the article:
’I would like to inform you that Kerry Michael Moran, incardinated and ordained deacon in the diocese of Fort-de-France (Martinique) on 26/08/2017, was dismissed from the clerical state on 6/02/2024 following a criminal trial opened on 19/07/22 at the request of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Kerry Moran was found guilty of acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor (c. 1398 §1, 1° CIC; art., 1° SST), a conviction confirmed by letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on April 24 2024.’
The Sixth Commandment is, first and foremost, a spiritual precept. Sins against the Sixth Commandment are not necessarily things that are civil crimes. Many of the things that the Church considers a sin of that type are celebrated in our world and are perfectly legal.
Divorce and remarriage for instance. Masturbation, using sɛҳuąƖly suggestive language, etc. Those things are sins against the Sixth Commandment, but are not civil crimes.
You are assuming that Moran was "convicted" of a civil crime such as ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ molestation of a minor. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Please improve your reading comprehension skills.
-
The Sixth Commandment is, first and foremost, a spiritual precept. Sins against the Sixth Commandment are not necessarily things that are civil crimes. Many of the things that the Church considers a sin of that type are celebrated in our world and are perfectly legal.
Divorce and remarriage for instance. Masturbation, using sɛҳuąƖly suggestive language, etc. Those things are sins against the Sixth Commandment, but are not civil crimes.
You are assuming that Moran was "convicted" of a civil crime such as ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ molestation of a minor. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Please improve your reading comprehension skills.
Kerry Moran was dismissed from the clerical state following a criminal trial in which he was found guilty of acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment with a minor (c. 1398 §1, 1° CIC; Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, art. 1). This conviction was confirmed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on 24 April 2024 and was publicly reported in the Belfast Telegraph (April 2024). These references indicate that Moran’s offenses involved actual acts of abuse, not merely sins or spiritual failings, and that his dismissal reflects the application of both canonical law and Church disciplinary procedure.
-
Kerry Moran was dismissed from the clerical state following a criminal trial in which he was found guilty of acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment with a minor (c. 1398 §1, 1° CIC; Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, art. 1). This conviction was confirmed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on 24 April 2024 and was publicly reported in the Belfast Telegraph (April 2024). These references indicate that Moran’s offenses involved actual acts of abuse, not merely sins or spiritual failings, and that his dismissal reflects the application of both canonical law and Church disciplinary procedure.
Where did you see the word "abuse?" Here are the words of Canon 1398, by the way:
Can. 1398— § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he:
1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;
2° grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or one to whom the law recognises equal protection to expose himself or herself pornographically or to take part in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or simulated;
3° immorally acquires, retains, exhibits or distributes, in whatever manner and by whatever technology, pornographic images of minors or of persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason.
Note that Moran was said to be "convicted" (by the perverts in the Vatican) of something specifically in subsection 1. It is very generic.
Note also that subsection 2 includes acts involving the exposure of private parts of the body. Moran was not "convicted" of that type of thing.
And note that subsection 3 includes acts related to technology, images and such things. Moran was not "convicted" of that type of thing.
So, even if we believe the Vatican, Moran could have been guilty of a very wide variety of things. Nothing is specified but that the act is "an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue" and the act was with a minor.
As I said in another post, I know a priest who was accused and summoned to the Vatican for speaking too freely to a teenager about sixth commandment offenses in the confessional, and then he was excommunicated when he didn't submit to the kangaroo court proceedings. He knew he was being framed. The reason he was targeted was that he had rejected the sɛҳuąƖ advances of his bishop while a seminarian a few years earlier. That put a target on his back.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
Where did you see the word "abuse?" Here are the words of Canon 1398, by the way:
Note that Moran was said to be "convicted" (by the perverts in the Vatican) of something specifically in subsection 1. It is very generic.
Note also that subsection 2 includes acts involving the exposure of private parts of the body. Moran was not "convicted" of that type of thing.
And note that subsection 3 includes acts related to technology, images and such things. Moran was not "convicted" of that type of thing.
So, even if we believe the Vatican, Moran could have been guilty of a very wide variety of things. Nothing is specified but that the act is "an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue" and the act was with a minor.
As I said in another post, I know a priest who was accused and summoned to the Vatican for speaking too freely to a teenager about sixth commandment offenses in the confessional, and then he was excommunicated when he didn't submit to the kangaroo court proceedings. He knew he was being framed. The reason he was targeted was that he had rejected the sɛҳuąƖ advances of his bishop while a seminarian a few years earlier. That put a target on his back.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
You are correct that Canon 1398 §1 1° uses the broad phrase “an offence against the Sixth Commandment with a minor” and does not literally say “abuse.” However, in canonical practice, this clause is applied to sɛҳuąƖ acts or contact with minors and is classified by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith as delicta graviora, the gravest canonical crimes. While the canon itself is euphemistic, official explanations of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela make clear that subsection 1 covers objectively serious sɛҳuąƖ offenses, not merely imprudent conversation or “spiritual” lapses. The Belfast Telegraph reported that Moran was found guilty under this canon following a canonical criminal process and subsequently dismissed from the clerical state. This confirms that the Church treated it as a serious sɛҳuąƖ‑offense case, rather than a minor disciplinary matter.
-
You are correct that Canon 1398 §1 1° uses the broad phrase “an offence against the Sixth Commandment with a minor” and does not literally say “abuse.” However, in canonical practice, this clause is applied to sɛҳuąƖ acts or contact with minors and is classified by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith as delicta graviora, the gravest canonical crimes. While the canon itself is euphemistic, official explanations of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela make clear that subsection 1 covers objectively serious sɛҳuąƖ offenses, not merely imprudent conversation or “spiritual” lapses. The Belfast Telegraph reported that Moran was found guilty under this canon following a canonical criminal process and subsequently dismissed from the clerical state. This confirms that the Church treated it as a serious sɛҳuąƖ‑offense case, rather than a minor disciplinary matter.
Well since you seem to know so much about the facts of the case, maybe you can provide us with the precise offenses he was "convicted" of (again, "convicted" by public heretics in the Vatican).
If you cannot do that, then you are simply speculating. And worse, you are trusting the judgment of "authorities" who are manifestly not teaching or enforcing Catholic principles related to the Sixth Commandment in other well-known cases.
The difference between us: I admit that I don't know the facts of the case, while you act as if you do know, but you actually know nothing.
-
Well since you seem to know so much about the facts of the case, maybe you can provide us with the precise offenses he was "convicted" of (again, "convicted" by public heretics in the Vatican).
If you cannot do that, then you are simply speculating. And worse, you are trusting the judgment of "authorities" who are manifestly not teaching or enforcing Catholic principles related to the Sixth Commandment in other well-known cases.
The difference between us: I admit that I don't know the facts of the case, while you act as if you do know, but you actually know nothing.
While the precise acts Moran committed have not been publicly disclosed, it is verifiable that he was dismissed from the clerical state following a canonical criminal trial under Canon 1398 §1 1° CIC, as reported by the Belfast Telegraph in April 2024. In canonical practice, this clause — identified by Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela as a delictum gravius — is applied to objectively serious sɛҳuąƖ offenses with minors, not mere imprudent conversation or spiritual lapses. Importantly, Archbishop Viganò has stated that he and Bishop Williamson were deceived regarding Moran specifically, and to date neither Ballini nor Moran have provided any public clarification or defense. Taken together, the Church’s canonical action remains the only verified and authoritative account.
-
Wow, for a brand-new member you're sure up to speed on the whole situation, existing threads on CathInfo, etc.
Where have you been all these years? It's almost like you've been here before -- under different account(s).
-
Pax, to get an idea of who you are really talking to, see his writings:
https://wherepeteris.com/author/gareth-thomas-weaver/
https://equusasinus.net
When I saw his name my jew detector went off, his nose looks Jєωιѕн too... Really makes you 🤔 🤔
-
While the precise acts Moran committed have not been publicly disclosed, it is verifiable that he was dismissed from the clerical state following a canonical criminal trial under Canon 1398 §1 1° CIC, as reported by the Belfast Telegraph in April 2024. In canonical practice, this clause — identified by Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela as a delictum gravius — is applied to objectively serious sɛҳuąƖ offenses with minors, not mere imprudent conversation or spiritual lapses. Importantly, Archbishop Viganò has stated that he and Bishop Williamson were deceived regarding Moran specifically, and to date neither Ballini nor Moran have provided any public clarification or defense. Taken together, the Church’s canonical action remains the only verified and authoritative account.
Oh, I see you are relying on a newspaper report. Trustworthy source on all things traditional Catholic, right? And you just keep repeating the same mantra over and over. But it reduces to you simply do not KNOW anything about the precise FACTS of the case.
And the fact that the "canonical practice" is supposed to apply to "objectively serious sɛҳuąƖ offenses with minors, not mere imprudent conversation or spiritual lapse," does not mean that abuses of that "canonical practice" are not possible, or that in this case that the facts were different. So we need to consider who is carrying out the "canonical practice."
Ah, it is the perverted antichrists running the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The guys who think ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couple blessings are a-ok. Are you really that stupid to just blindly trust what they do or say?
-
Wow, for a brand-new member you're sure up to speed on the whole situation, existing threads on CathInfo, etc.
Where have you been all these years? It's almost like you've been here before -- under different account(s).
Notice Matthew uses a manual dash (--) and "maxkolbe" uses the GPT em dash.
One might have hoped he/she/it would put some effort into concealing intellectual laziness. I do hope CathInfo doesn’t succuмb to the contagion of AI slop
-
Indeed Boru, if one has nothing to hide why hide?.
Why are you hiding/lying about currently residing in Ireland, when everyone who has a brain can figure out that cannot be true. But you make no "public statement clarifying everything." Did you know that lying (a sin against the Eighth Commandment) can be a mortal sin just as significant in the eyes of God as sins against the Sixth Commandment?
Angelus, I have clarified myself many times. I have responded to numerous people privately as well - openly and honestly. I never lie, its cowardly.
The problem is not me, it's you. You only see what you want to see. For some reason you feel so threatened by a different point of view that you are going into overdrive. A forum is for discussing and debating and exchanging news. This can be done politely and with mutual respect. I have no agenda other than to discuss, debate and exchange news - and learn as I go.
Now this particular thread is about a serious issue that concerns us all. Yes, I go to a SSPX chapel but I have Resistance friends and I want the message to get out far and wide that there has been/is an officially laicized man - laicized for for child abuse - who is passing himself off as a priest in good standing. Enough evidence has been submitted to prove that this is indeed happening and that the faithful need to be on their guard, ask questions and have the situation clarified by Bp Morgan and Bp. Ballini who were responsible for having this man on the Irish and English circuit without any warning about his background. In anyone's book this was a highly negligent and irresponsible thing to do.
Moran refused to give Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh his name or any other personal details. They accepted him purely because he was recommended by Bp. Morgan. This shows us that this Moran fellow could turn up anywhere on the Resistance radar - even America. It also shows that Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini are not being open and truthful and this too should be a great concern.
I did not start this thread. Naturally, I assumed there were many UK/Irish posters who were worried about this man. Naturally I assumed all posters WERE worried about this man. The Resistance circle is very small and very dependent on the priests they are given to offer the sacraments. This makes the danger all the greater. I assure you my husband and myself have been VERY vocal about the cover-ups within the SSPX clergy. We are certainly not Bishop Fellay's favourite people. So please, may we stop this hostility - at least on this thread - and pull together to find out where this Moran is and why Bp. Morgan is hiding/defending him.
-
So please, may we stop this hostility - at least on this thread - and pull together to find out where this Moran is and why Bp. Morgan is hiding/defending him.
I haven’t followed these threads closely, so perhaps I’ve missed a detail but I’m rather perplexed. If +Morgan isn’t speaking to anyone, how is it publicly known that he’s hiding or defending Moran? Those two positions don’t quite reconcile.
-
I haven’t followed these threads closely, so perhaps I’ve missed a detail but I’m rather perplexed. If +Morgan isn’t speaking to anyone, how is it publicly known that he’s hiding or defending Moran? Those two positions don’t quite reconcile.
Defending with silence.
-
Defending with silence.
Silence is not defense. It is discernment.
-
Angelus, I have clarified myself many times. I have responded to numerous people privately as well - openly and honestly. I never lie, its cowardly.
The problem is not me, it's you. You only see what you want to see. For some reason you feel so threatened by a different point of view that you are going into overdrive. A forum is for discussing and debating and exchanging news. This can be done politely and with mutual respect. I have no agenda other than to discuss, debate and exchange news - and learn as I go.
Now this particular thread is about a serious issue that concerns us all. Yes, I go to a SSPX chapel but I have Resistance friends and I want the message to get out far and wide that there has been/is an officially laicized man - laicized for for child abuse - who is passing himself off as a priest in good standing. Enough evidence has been submitted to prove that this is indeed happening and that the faithful need to be on their guard, ask questions and have the situation clarified by Bp Morgan and Bp. Ballini who were responsible for having this man on the Irish and English circuit without any warning about his background. In anyone's book this was a highly negligent and irresponsible thing to do.
Moran refused to give Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh his name or any other personal details. They accepted him purely because he was recommended by Bp. Morgan. This shows us that this Moran fellow could turn up anywhere on the Resistance radar - even America. It also shows that Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini are not being open and truthful and this too should be a great concern.
I did not start this thread. Naturally, I assumed there were many UK/Irish posters who were worried about this man. Naturally I assumed all posters WERE worried about this man. The Resistance circle is very small and very dependent on the priests they are given to offer the sacraments. This makes the danger all the greater. I assure you my husband and myself have been VERY vocal about the cover-ups within the SSPX clergy. We are certainly not Bishop Fellay's favourite people. So please, may we stop this hostility - at least on this thread - and pull together to find out where this Moran is and why Bp. Morgan is hiding/defending him.
Admit that you don't currently reside in Ireland. Admit that you are on the forum to stir up trouble. Then I will let it go.
Your very first post on the forum is below:
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 (https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695)
The above article may answer a number questions raised here on this forum with regards to the back ground of Mr. Kerry Michael Moran ('Fr. Fake' as Dr. Kavanagh calls him). Respectfully I address him as Mr. given that he was officially laicized as a deacon and as far I understand, can only be canonically reinstated to the clerical state with a special dispensation from the Holy See. This of course brings into question the validly of his alleged ordination, especially as he was laicised only last year (June 2024) and yet presented himself as an ordained pries less than a year later. Again, I use the word alleged, because it is shrouded in secrecy; no one knows who ordained him, when he was ordained, or whether he is simply claiming to be ordained. Perhaps, and I am speculating, this is what His Grace Archbishop Vigano was alluding to when he said himself and His Lordship Bishop Williamson had been deceived. What is certain is that this Mr. Moran has a long recorded history of being moved from place to place due to inappropriate behavior with minors. And as a Ladislaus outlined earlier, an innocent man, who cared about the faithful, would never insert himself into the homes of young children until he name about been formerly cleared.
Claim 1: Moran should be addressed as Mr. because he was laicized (as a deacon) by the perverts in the Vatican in 2024. You get this from a news report. You assume this and launch into your tirade.
Claim 2: Moran's later ordination by a Resistance Bishop might not be valid because of the Vatican action. You provide no proof of that a laicization related to the Diaconate would prevent a man from later becoming an ordained Priest. You simply say that the perverts in the UnHoly See would need to reinstate him. Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Let me spell it out for you. You trust the perverts in the Vatican.
Claim 3: Moran's situation is "shrouded in secrecy." Not really, it seems that you and the newspapers act as if they have all the information they need to condemn him. You have played judge and jury regarding him and the Resistance bishops. Another pattern revealed. You DO NOT trust the Resistance bishops.
Claim 4: No one knows who ordained him. How do you know that? Maybe you don't know. But why would it even matter. No one is claiming it is any one other than one of the Resistance bishops, who are all validly consecrated bishops. Again, you don't trust the Resistance bishops. But you do trust the NuChurch bishops and the SSPX bishops.
Claim 5: Where did Vigano "allude to" being deceived by Moran? Maybe he did. Show the evidence. You claim to trust Vigano. Of course Vigano was excommunicated by the same perverts in the Vatican that you trust. So you are a self-contradicting mess.
Claim 6: Moran "moved from place to place due to inappropriate behavior with minors." Where is your proof that he moved because of that reason?
Claim 7: You say "an innocent man would never insert himself into the home of young children." Whose home is he inserting himself into? But this even assumes that he is guilty of anything significant, which all you have to go on is speculation and innuendo based one the actions of pervert in the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Tucho's Vatican Kangaroo Court.
See Boru. It is clear from your very first post that you have an agenda. That agenda is to destroy the reputations of the Resistance bishops by using the Moran scandal, created by the Youtube piano man, who also has an agenda.
You are a plant and here to stir up trouble. You claim to be so concerned about Resistance faithful. What a farce. Are there so many cases of molestation going on in the tiny Resistance chapels? Is this a joke. Ah, but we know there certainly are MANY molestations happening the the Novus Ordo, and FSSP, and SSPX. Those are all over the news with confessions from the perpetrators and jail time. But what does Boru do? She (it?) focuses on the Resistance. Hmmm.
-
Silence is not defense. It is discernment.
Wow.
Archbishop Vigano will clear this up.
-
Defending with silence.
My SSPX priest said that he was taught that if the priests are ever accused of such crimes they should remain silent and take it as coming from God.
-
My SSPX priest said that he was taught that if the priests are ever accused of such crimes they should remain silent and take it as coming from God.
Which explains Father Rostand etc.
-
Which explains Father Rostand etc.
Says the man who trusts the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to tell the truth.
Rostand was tried in the civil courts and admitted to his horrors and is serving jail time. Yes, the SSPX bishops promoted him to District Superior in the USA before his arrest. That was not good.
Moran, on the other hand, has not been reported by the Vatican to any civil authorities for whatever sins they claim he committed. Oh no, is the Vatican complicit in harboring a "child molester," as you claim him to be. Say it isn't so.
This is much bigger than Moran, Mr. Kolbe. Go right now and warn all of the NuChurch followers that the Vatican is aiding and abetting child molestors. Um...wait we already know they do that. But, no worries. We trust the Vatican in all of their "convictions" and "laicisations."
Let's just get back to destroying the reputations of the Resistance bishops, basing all of our claims on newspaper reports, innuendo, and Vatican pervert "convictions." Is that right, Kolbe? Is that what you are doing?
-
Says the man who trusts the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to tell the truth.
Rostand was tried in the civil courts and admitted to his horrors and is serving jail time. Yes, the SSPX bishops promoted him to District Superior in the USA before his arrest. That was not good.
Moran, on the other hand, has not been reported by the Vatican to any civil authorities for whatever sins they claim he committed. Oh no, is the Vatican complicit in harboring a "child molester," as you claim him to be. Say it isn't so.
This is much bigger than Moran, Mr. Kolbe. Go right now and warn all of the NuChurch followers that the Vatican is aiding and abetting child molestors. Um...wait we already know they do that. But, no worries. We trust the Vatican in all of their "convictions" and "laicisations."
Let's just get back to destroying the reputations of the Resistance bishops, basing all of our claims on newspaper reports, innuendo, and Vatican pervert "convictions." Is that right, Kolbe? Is that what you are doing?
Continues to bury head in sand.
-
Continues to bury head in sand.
Do you trust the teachings and canonical actions of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith? Yes or no?
-
Wow.
Archbishop Vigano will clear this up.
Hmm...in the four or so emails I’ve received from him recently, I noticed no mention of this matter, only the customary appeals for donations. Are you suggesting he’s indicated an intention to address this issue publicly?
-
Angelus, I have clarified myself many times. I have responded to numerous people privately as well - openly and honestly. I never lie, its cowardly.
Moran refused to give Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh his name or any other personal details. They accepted him purely because he was recommended by Bp. Morgan. This shows us that this Moran fellow ..."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg990492/#msg990492
I doubt that + Morgan recommended 'fr. ' Moran. In the OP video, June 24 Title:"Watch First: Context of the Arrest",
TimeStamp 0:47, DrK says:
"...So we were recommended a priest by a good Catholic family , who had the support of a bishop who we have known for 15 years. ..."
(+Williamson.?)
Even on Sept 8, 2024 AD, "fr" Moran was already intoning the "Asperges me" in the Barn chapel of DrK.as per my previous post(X. com)
-
Says the man who trusts the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to tell the truth.
Rostand was tried in the civil courts and admitted to his horrors and is serving jail time. Yes, the SSPX bishops promoted him to District Superior in the USA before his arrest. That was not good.
Moran, on the other hand, has not been reported by the Vatican to any civil authorities for whatever sins they claim he committed. Oh no, is the Vatican complicit in harboring a "child molester," as you claim him to be. Say it isn't so.
This is much bigger than Moran, Mr. Kolbe. Go right now and warn all of the NuChurch followers that the Vatican is aiding and abetting child molestors. Um...wait we already know they do that. But, no worries. We trust the Vatican in all of their "convictions" and "laicisations."
Let's just get back to destroying the reputations of the Resistance bishops, basing all of our claims on newspaper reports, innuendo, and Vatican pervert "convictions." Is that right, Kolbe? Is that what you are doing?
to your last point, nope. I defended this scandal like you are doing, and then I looked into it, and realized I was defending the indefensible.
-
to your last point, nope. I defended this scandal like you are doing, and then I looked into it, and realized I was defending the indefensible.
Well, are you holding something back from us? Please lay out the full evidence that convinced you.
-
Well, are you holding something back from us? Please lay out the full evidence that convinced you.
Go ahead and email/contact Bishop Ballini and Bishop Morgan yourself.
-
Quote from: maxkolbe (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001783#msg1001783)
Go ahead and email/contact Bishop Ballini and Bishop Morgan yourself.
Also keep in mind the post-conciliar Church’s 1983 Code of Canon Law, which replaced the clear and automatic penalties of the 1917 Code with broader and more discretionary language, has the effect of shielding clerics like Moran from the full juridical and moral consequences that the older law imposed. By reducing explicit definitions of sɛҳuąƖ crimes to the vague phrase “an offence against the Sixth Commandment,” and by allowing punishment to depend on administrative discretion rather than automatic deposition and infamy, the conciliar system tends to treat such cases pastorally rather than juridically. In this sense, the modern canonical framework functionally protects the guilty by softening justice into policy, whereas the pre-conciliar law would have dealt with the same offences as objective crimes requiring deposition and public disgrace.
The conciliar revision of canon law not only softened penalties but also made episcopal silence possible.
-
Go ahead and email/contact Bishop Ballini and Bishop Morgan yourself.
Are you saying that Bishop Ballini and Bishop Morgan have confirmed that Moran is dangerous and should not be acting as a priest in the Resistance?
-
Are you saying that Bishop Ballini and Bishop Morgan have confirmed that Moran is dangerous and should not be acting as a priest in the Resistance?
I am saying you should contact Bishop Ballini, and Bishop Morgan, and ask them for clarity yourself about this scandal.
You can also ask Bishop Ballini why half his parish in Ireland left over this.
-
I am saying you should contact Bishop Ballini, and Bishop Morgan, and ask them for clarity yourself about this scandal.
You can also ask Bishop Ballini why half is parish in Ireland left over this.
Let me be clear, as I have said. I don't know the facts here. I don't know Moran. I don't know Ballini or Morgan.
But I definitely don't trust that Dr. K character. And I definitely don't trust Boru or the numerous other Boru-like sock puppets that pose as Catholics concerned about the children while generally making a mess of Catholic dogma on every other thread.
If you have further evidence of a danger posed by Moran, you should share it with us. You have implied (but not confirmed) that your evidence comes from a conversation with Ballini or Morgan. So tell us what you know and who it came from. Clear things up for us yourself. Then, anyone can, if they choose, confirm with Ballini or Morgan.
-
I am saying you should contact Bishop Ballini, and Bishop Morgan, and ask them for clarity yourself about this scandal.
You can also ask Bishop Ballini why half his parish in Ireland left over this.
I've already done so, and you are lying. Your narrative is as detached from reality as your reasoning, and it’s evident you’re not directly involved. If you truly possessed the facts, you’d present them, not dangle insinuations and pray someone else legitimizes your delusions.
-
Let me be clear, as I have said. I don't know the facts here. I don't know Moran. I don't know Ballini or Morgan.
But I definitely don't trust that Dr. K character. And I definitely don't trust Boru or the numerous other Boru-like sock puppets that pose as Catholics concerned about the children while generally making a mess of Catholic dogma on every other thread.
If you have further evidence of a danger posed by Moran, you should share it with us. You have implied (but not confirmed) that your evidence comes from a conversation with Ballini or Morgan. So tell us what you know and who it came from. Clear things up for us yourself. Then, anyone can, if they choose, confirm with Ballini or Morgan.
Many have cited what is publicly verifiable, if anyone wants to clarify, they should contact Bishop Ballini and Bishop Morgan.
-
I've already done so, and you are lying. Your narrative is as detached from reality as your reasoning, and it’s evident you’re not directly involved. If you truly possessed the facts, you’d present them, not dangle insinuations and pray someone else legitimizes your delusions.
Please address where I am lieing.
-
Please address where I am lieing.
I won’t fill in the blanks of the gossip you’ve been fed. Clearly you haven’t contacted anyone directly otherwise you’d be too embarrassed to post on this topic. I can’t help but laugh at how expertly you’ve been played by the grifters.
-
Quote from: TheRealMcCoy (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001794#msg1001794) 2025-10-09, 10:47:49 AM
I won’t fill in the blanks of the gossip you’ve been fed. Clearly you haven’t contacted anyone directly otherwise you’d be too embarrassed to post on this topic. I can’t help but laugh at how expertly you’ve been played by the grifters.
My posts are based on publicly verifiable information: Moran’s dismissal under Canon 1398 §1 1° CIC, the canonical trial dates, and the Belfast Telegraph report. I have cited only docuмented facts and Church procedures, not gossip.
-
My posts are based on publicly verifiable information: Moran’s dismissal under Canon 1398 §1 1° CIC, the canonical trial dates, and the Belfast Telegraph report. I have cited only docuмented facts and Church procedures, not gossip.
And according to the statements shared by cathinfo user “truthy” it is claimed that Bishops Williamson, Ballini, and Morgan have reviewed the evidence, and that Matthew has seen a letter from Father Moran’s advocate. For clarity and the good of all involved, if there is evidence that conclusively demonstrates innocence, it should be made available for proper review. In matters affecting the reputation and integrity of clergy, prudence, transparency, and adherence to truth are essential, so that all may discern rightly.
-
My posts are based on publicly verifiable information: Moran’s dismissal under Canon 1398 §1 1° CIC, the canonical trial dates, and the Belfast Telegraph report. I have cited only docuмented facts and Church procedures, not gossip.
The (dis)information you have posted has been shown to be doubtful. It is absolutely gossip because you and others have implied that we are to take the "conviction" by Tucho's Vatican as proof of a man's guilt. You have used nothing more as your "facts" what has been ambiguously reported in a newspaper article, which includes words like "may have been" and "might have" preceding the accusations.
And suspiciously all of this lines up with the agenda to blacken the reputations of the two Resistance bishops, which is really the true purpose of the entire affair. Now that we have exposed one of their agents, Garrett Weaver, through his own admission, we can see what many of the people (not all) are up to. It is an orchestrated effort by a few to create dissension within the Resistance by using "the Moran affair."
If what you say is anything more than gossip, innuendo, newspaper garbage and Vatican shenanigans, pony up and specifically state the evidence.
And again I ask, if Moran is such the "child predator" why did the UK authorities not go after and arrest him when they were contacted about Dr. K? Why didn't the police, who have access to INTERPOL information on all worldwide offenders, lock "the child predator" up? Is it because Moran is so rich and powerful that he has the UK police in his back pocket? Answer this please.
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001803#msg1001803) 2025-10-09, 12:26:01 PM
The (dis)information you have posted has been shown to be doubtful. It is absolutely gossip because you and others have implied that we are to take the "conviction" by Tucho's Vatican as proof of a man's guilt. You have used nothing more as your "facts" what has been ambiguously reported in a newspaper article, which includes words like "may have been" and "might have" preceding the accusations.
And suspiciously all of this lines up with the agenda to blacken the reputations of the two Resistance bishops, which is really the true purpose of the entire affair. Now that we have exposed one of your agents, Garrett Weaver, through his own admission, we can see what many of the people (not all) are up to. It is an orchestrated effort by a few to create dissension within the Resistance by using "the Moran affair."
If what you say is anything more than gossip, innuendo, newspaper garbage and Vatican shenanigans, pony up and specifically state the evidence.
And again I ask, if Moran is such the "child predator" why did the UK authorities not go after and arrest him when they were contacted about Dr. K? Why didn't the police, who have access to INTERPOL information on all worldwide offenders, lock "the child predator" up? Is it because Moran is so rich and powerful that he has the UK police in his back pocket? Answer this please.
I am not relying on “Vatican shenanigans” or media speculation. My concern is based on multiple independent, verifiable facts. Fr. Moran was twice dismissed from ministry, once in London and again in Martinique, each time following accusations of serious misconduct. A diocesan chancellor publicly stated that his suspension was for “unnatural sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors.” That is not tabloid wording, that is an official canonical reason. The Vatican’s decree was not based on newspaper articles but on internal canonical proceedings. If his advocate has docuмentation proving a miscarriage of justice, then publishing or at least summarizing it would clear the air.
As for police action, absence of criminal conviction does not mean innocence, especially in ecclesiastical matters where canonical investigations have different standards and goals. Many clerical offenders have never faced civil charges, often because of lack of witnesses, statutes of limitation, or jurisdictional gaps, not because they were exonerated.
Finally, invoking “agendas” or “agents” does not answer the central question of whether the process that led to his suspension was fair or not. If those defending him have clear evidence that he was unjustly accused, they should present it rather than dismiss everything as gossip.
-
And according to the statements shared by cathinfo user “truthy” it is claimed that Bishops Williamson, Ballini, and Morgan have reviewed the evidence, and that Matthew has seen a letter from Father Moran’s advocate. For clarity and the good of all involved, if there is evidence that conclusively demonstrates innocence, it should be made available for proper review. In matters affecting the reputation and integrity of clergy, prudence, transparency, and adherence to truth are essential, so that all may discern rightly.
The accused man does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on you and his accusers to prove his guilt. What kind of game are you playing?
And in Truthy's comments, he laid out precisely the opposite conclusion you have drawn. Listen to what the man said and stop imagining things and believing people who are intentionally trying to cause dissension.
If Ballini and Morgan know the story about Moran and support him, unless you have some evidence that they don't have, you should leave it alone. It is not your place to run the show. If you don't like it attend Mass elsewhere.
Why are you so worried about the Resistance's reputation? Do you even attend a Resistance chapel in the UK/Ireland?
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001805#msg1001805) 2025-10-09, 12:35:09 PM
The accused man does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on you and his accusers to prove his guilt. What kind of game are you playing?
And in Truthy's comments, he laid out precisely the opposite conclusion you have drawn. Listen to what the man said and stop imagining things and believing people who are intentionally trying to cause dissension.
If Ballini and Morgan know the story about Moran and support him, unless you have some evidence that they don't have, you should leave it alone. It is not your place to run the show. If you don't like it attend Mass elsewhere.
Why are you so worried about the Resistance's reputation? Do you even attend a Resistance chapel in the UK/Ireland?
I understand that in civil law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but canonical law and ecclesiastical responsibility work differently. Bishops and ecclesiastical authorities have the duty to protect the faithful, especially minors, and can remove or suspend priests based on credible accusations, even in the absence of criminal convictions. That is not “running the show” but acknowledging the Church’s responsibility to safeguard souls.
My concern is not about causing dissension but about ensuring that serious allegations are not ignored or dismissed without scrutiny. I am not questioning the personal judgment of Bishops Ballini or Morgan, nor am I claiming to overrule them. The question is whether the canonical process was carried out properly and transparently. If it was, then the matter should be able to withstand honest examination.
I do attend Mass exclusively in the Resistance but not in the UK and care deeply about the integrity of the priesthood and the faithful. This is not about personal preference but about responsibility. Concern for the truth is not the same as interfering with the Church’s authority.
-
I understand that in civil law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but canonical law and ecclesiastical responsibility work differently. Bishops and ecclesiastical authorities have the duty to protect the faithful, especially minors, and can remove or suspend priests based on credible accusations, even in the absence of criminal convictions. That is not “running the show” but acknowledging the Church’s responsibility to safeguard souls.
My concern is not about causing dissension but about ensuring that serious allegations are not ignored or dismissed without scrutiny. I am not questioning the personal judgment of Bishops Ballini or Morgan, nor am I claiming to overrule them. The question is whether the canonical process was carried out properly and transparently. If it was, then the matter should be able to withstand honest examination.
I do attend Mass exclusively in the Resistance but not in the UK and care deeply about the integrity of the priesthood and the faithful. This is not about personal preference but about responsibility. Concern for the truth is not the same as interfering with the Church’s authority.
Here is the other side presented by Moran's friend, Truthy. Take note of the part in red.
3
SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / Re: Man arrested for email (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991460/#msg991460)
« on: July 02, 2025, 02:22:15 PM »
Reply to Matthew --
You say they are highly unlikely and rare, but what evidence do you have or that? Priests are being cancelled every day and the easiest and quickest excuse available is inappropriate behaviour with minors, even when this doesn’t involve the police or civil authorities. It is a fact that Fr. M has never been questioned by the police let alone arrested or convicted. His totally clear police checks from the UK, Ireland and Martinique (France) show that.
This affair doesn’t give them a black eye. There has been absolutely no mention of this at all in Martinique. Nothing on the website of the diocese announcing the ‘laicisation’ or anything else. Yet they have done this with regard to the arrest of another priest there. Strange.
I don’t think Fr. Moran was in Martinique for 10 years. He arrived in 2016 and left in 2019 after making a complaint to the Holy See about the behaviour of the Archbishop. Fr. M is also a canon lawyer.
Remember that Fr. M was not a priest when in Martinique. He was ordained after leaving. There is a docuмent which he was asked to sign in 2017 agreeing to various things, including not publicly celebrating the Traditional Mass, and celebrating the new Mass in French with all the horrors when asked to - even though when INVITED to the diocese it was under the condition that he would never have to say the new Mass ever.
The charges against Fr. M are very vague. He still doesn’t know exactly what they are, even after having been found guilty of committing them.
Matthew notes 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.” Yet this is the exact same extrajudicial penal process which Fr. M was faced with, only in his case he was not given the right to defend himself, nor to have a canonical legal advocate, nor to have the process conducted in a language he properly understood. He has never seen the acts of the case and has only been given the barest of information about it, after he was declared guilty by a judge who had himself been recused for lacking impartiality 18 months before.
The Holy See is in possession of 5 sworn affidavits from young men and the mother of 13 children which testify under oath that the archbishop of Martinique approached them and asked them to fabricate allegations against Fr. M. This was all in the years immediately BEFORE retaliatory accusations were made against Fr. M and 3 years after he had left Martinique and the Novus Ordo Church and refused requests by the bishop for him to voluntarily seek laicisation as he was no longer working in the diocese and was ‘absent without leave’. The ‘vos estis’ complaint was made to the Vatican in 2020 and 2021. The ‘allegations’ against Fr. M only surfaced in July 2022.
After being declared ‘guilty’ in an administrative process and refused the right to appeal, Fr. M was given the barest of details of what he was accused of. Yet, there is evidence in the form of aeroplane tickets and passport stamps, as well as bank statements, which show that he was thousands of miles away in Europe at the time.
People are talking of previous allegations taking place in Cardiff and London. Fr. M was never a cleric for either of those dioceses and if there was even the slightest evidence of issues or problems of this sort; is it conceivable in this day and age (2016), that he would have been invited to go to Martinique by the bishop? As Matthew pointed out, “The Conciliar Church has enough scandal in this department. They don't need to give themselves additional black eyes.”
But of course Matthew knows all this because he has seen a letter from Fr. M’s advocate which details the entire thing. Fr. M has also volunteered on several occasions to speak with Matthew and provide any and all docuмentary evidence for him to see. He simply doesn’t want to post the entire thing online whilst canonical proceedings are still underway in Rome AGAINST the bishop of Martinique. Yet Matthew has not responded to those several requests and continues to ply this out, helping destroy the reputation and good name of a priest. For what purpose exactly? Bishops Williamson, Ballini and Morgan have all seen this evidence and are obviously satisfied with it.
(https://i.imgur.com/wlt3bK4.jpeg)
The Archbishop of Martinique, the accuser and judge of Fr Moran.
(https://i.imgur.com/EAP5kfr.jpeg)
Cardinal Tucho who is the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, who allowed the archbishop of Martinique to continue, who ignored the evidence and refused to even consider my appeal even though it was clear that I wasn’t in the hemisphere at the time.
More on Cardinal Tucho - https://onepeterfive.com/more-erotic-musings-from-vatican-head-of-doctrine/
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001810#msg1001810)
Here is the other side presented by Moran's friend, Truthy. Take note of the part in red.
3
SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / Re: Man arrested for email (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991460/#msg991460)
« on: July 02, 2025, 02:22:15 PM »
Reply to Matthew --
You say they are highly unlikely and rare, but what evidence do you have or that? Priests are being cancelled every day and the easiest and quickest excuse available is inappropriate behaviour with minors, even when this doesn’t involve the police or civil authorities. It is a fact that Fr. M has never been questioned by the police let alone arrested or convicted. His totally clear police checks from the UK, Ireland and Martinique (France) show that.
This affair doesn’t give them a black eye. There has been absolutely no mention of this at all in Martinique. Nothing on the website of the diocese announcing the ‘laicisation’ or anything else. Yet they have done this with regard to the arrest of another priest there. Strange.
I don’t think Fr. Moran was in Martinique for 10 years. He arrived in 2016 and left in 2019 after making a complaint to the Holy See about the behaviour of the Archbishop. Fr. M is also a canon lawyer.
Remember that Fr. M was not a priest when in Martinique. He was ordained after leaving. There is a docuмent which he was asked to sign in 2017 agreeing to various things, including not publicly celebrating the Traditional Mass, and celebrating the new Mass in French with all the horrors when asked to - even though when INVITED to the diocese it was under the condition that he would never have to say the new Mass ever.
The charges against Fr. M are very vague. He still doesn’t know exactly what they are, even after having been found guilty of committing them.
Matthew notes 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.” Yet this is the exact same extrajudicial penal process which Fr. M was faced with, only in his case he was not given the right to defend himself, nor to have a canonical legal advocate, nor to have the process conducted in a language he properly understood. He has never seen the acts of the case and has only been given the barest of information about it, after he was declared guilty by a judge who had himself been recused for lacking impartiality 18 months before.
The Holy See is in possession of 5 sworn affidavits from young men and the mother of 13 children which testify under oath that the archbishop of Martinique approached them and asked them to fabricate allegations against Fr. M. This was all in the years immediately BEFORE retaliatory accusations were made against Fr. M and 3 years after he had left Martinique and the Novus Ordo Church and refused requests by the bishop for him to voluntarily seek laicisation as he was no longer working in the diocese and was ‘absent without leave’. The ‘vos estis’ complaint was made to the Vatican in 2020 and 2021. The ‘allegations’ against Fr. M only surfaced in July 2022.
After being declared ‘guilty’ in an administrative process and refused the right to appeal, Fr. M was given the barest of details of what he was accused of. Yet, there is evidence in the form of aeroplane tickets and passport stamps, as well as bank statements, which show that he was thousands of miles away in Europe at the time.
People are talking of previous allegations taking place in Cardiff and London. Fr. M was never a cleric for either of those dioceses and if there was even the slightest evidence of issues or problems of this sort; is it conceivable in this day and age (2016), that he would have been invited to go to Martinique by the bishop? As Matthew pointed out, “The Conciliar Church has enough scandal in this department. They don't need to give themselves additional black eyes.”
But of course Matthew knows all this because he has seen a letter from Fr. M’s advocate which details the entire thing. Fr. M has also volunteered on several occasions to speak with Matthew and provide any and all docuмentary evidence for him to see. He simply doesn’t want to post the entire thing online whilst canonical proceedings are still underway in Rome AGAINST the bishop of Martinique. Yet Matthew has not responded to those several requests and continues to ply this out, helping destroy the reputation and good name of a priest. For what purpose exactly? Bishops Williamson, Ballini and Morgan have all seen this evidence and are obviously satisfied with it.
(https://i.imgur.com/wlt3bK4.jpeg)
The Archbishop of Martinique, the accuser and judge of Fr Moran.
(https://i.imgur.com/EAP5kfr.jpeg)
Cardinal Tucho who is the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, who allowed the archbishop of Martinique to continue, who ignored the evidence and refused to even consider my appeal even though it was clear that I wasn’t in the hemisphere at the time.
More on Cardinal Tucho - https://onepeterfive.com/more-erotic-musings-from-vatican-head-of-doctrine/
Respectfully, the claim that Bishops Williamson, Ballini, and Morgan “have seen this evidence and are satisfied with it” is not proof. Private opinions, no matter how respected, cannot replace verifiable facts. If there is genuine exonerating evidence, it should be made available for independent review.
Canonical law operates differently from civil law. Bishops and the Vatican have the duty to protect the faithful, especially minors, and may suspend priests based on credible allegations without a criminal conviction. That is not overreach; it is responsibility.
The tribunal found Fr. Moran guilty of offenses against the Sixth Commandment. If these accusations are false, transparency is the remedy. Assertions, anecdotes, or private letters cannot substitute for evidence. Asking for clarity is not an attack on the Resistance or its bishops, it is a demand for truth and accountability, which strengthens, not weakens, the Church.
-
Respectfully, the claim that Bishops Williamson, Ballini, and Morgan “have seen this evidence and are satisfied with it” is not proof. Private opinions, no matter how respected, cannot replace verifiable facts. If there is genuine exonerating evidence, it should be made available for independent review.
Canonical law operates differently from civil law. Bishops and the Vatican have the duty to protect the faithful, especially minors, and may suspend priests based on credible allegations without a criminal conviction. That is not overreach; it is responsibility.
The tribunal found Fr. Moran guilty of offenses against the Sixth Commandment. If these accusations are false, transparency is the remedy. Assertions, anecdotes, or private letters cannot substitute for evidence. Asking for clarity is not an attack on the Resistance or its bishops, it is a demand for truth and accountability, which strengthens, not weakens, the Church.
Transparency of what? Verify what facts? If the man is not guilty, how is he going to prove a negative? Again, you have this whole thing backwards, logically and legally.
The fact that Moran was saying Mass in the UK/Ireland after the Dr. K nonsense started, and the fact that Bp. Morgan called the police on Dr. K and had him arrested, testifies to the confidence Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini have in Fr. Moran's story. The bishops have spoken through their actions.
Since you continue to repeat the doubtful claims of the antichrist Vatican and you misled with your contact the bishops demand, I can only assume that you are acting in bad faith.
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001819#msg1001819) 2025-10-09, 1:22:17 PM
Transparency of what? Verify what facts? If the man is not guilty, how is he going to prove a negative? Again, you have this whole thing backwards, logically and legally.
The fact that Moran was saying Mass in the UK/Ireland after the Dr. K nonsense started, and the fact that Bp. Morgan called the police on Dr. K and had him arrested, testifies to the confidence Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini have in Fr. Moran's story. The bishops have spoken through their actions.
Since you continue to repeat the doubtful claims of the antichrist Vatican and you misled with your contact the bishops demand, I can only assume that you are acting in bad faith.
You are mistaken. I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. I am asking for transparency about claims that positive evidence exists-affidavits, letters, and docuмentation said to exonerate Fr. Moran. If that material truly clears his name, then showing it or allowing it to be verified would only help his cause. That is not unfair; that is how truth and justice work.
No one denies that bishops may support him personally, but support is not the same as proof. The Church has seen many cases where confidence in a cleric preceded later revelations. Charity and prudence require both compassion and verification.
As for acting in bad faith, I am simply repeating what is on record: an official decree, two prior dismissals, and the claim that bishops have seen secret evidence. Asking for clarity is not disloyalty; it is fidelity to the truth. The Resistance deserves honesty and transparency, not suspicion of anyone who asks reasonable questions.
-
"...The fact that Moran was saying Mass in the UK/Ireland after the Dr. K nonsense started, and the fact that Bp. Morgan called the police on Dr. K and had him arrested, testifies to the confidence Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini ..."
Are you sure that + Morgan called the police? I haven't seen proof of that...did I miss that docuмent/ correspondence? You need proof for qualifying a fact... Did the police headquarter announce that?
I am wondering if all this is actually going to court...is it in the works?
Being a FAKE priest is not against the law, is it?
-
Admit that you don't currently reside in Ireland. Admit that you are on the forum to stir up trouble. Then I will let it go.
Your very first post on the forum is below:
Claim 1: Moran should be addressed as Mr. because he was laicized (as a deacon) by the perverts in the Vatican in 2024. You get this from a news report. You assume this and launch into your tirade.
Claim 2: Moran's later ordination by a Resistance Bishop might not be valid because of the Vatican action. You provide no proof of that a laicization related to the Diaconate would prevent a man from later becoming an ordained Priest. You simply say that the perverts in the UnHoly See would need to reinstate him. Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Let me spell it out for you. You trust the perverts in the Vatican.
Claim 3: Moran's situation is "shrouded in secrecy." Not really, it seems that you and the newspapers act as if they have all the information they need to condemn him. You have played judge and jury regarding him and the Resistance bishops. Another pattern revealed. You DO NOT trust the Resistance bishops.
Claim 4: No one knows who ordained him. How do you know that? Maybe you don't know. But why would it even matter. No one is claiming it is any one other than one of the Resistance bishops, who are all validly consecrated bishops. Again, you don't trust the Resistance bishops. But you do trust the NuChurch bishops and the SSPX bishops.
Claim 5: Where did Vigano "allude to" being deceived by Moran? Maybe he did. Show the evidence. You claim to trust Vigano. Of course Vigano was excommunicated by the same perverts in the Vatican that you trust. So you are a self-contradicting mess.
Claim 6: Moran "moved from place to place due to inappropriate behavior with minors." Where is your proof that he moved because of that reason?
Claim 7: You say "an innocent man would never insert himself into the home of young children." Whose home is he inserting himself into? But this even assumes that he is guilty of anything significant, which all you have to go on is speculation and innuendo based one the actions of pervert in the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Tucho's Vatican Kangaroo Court.
See Boru. It is clear from your very first post that you have an agenda. That agenda is to destroy the reputations of the Resistance bishops by using the Moran scandal, created by the Youtube piano man, who also has an agenda.
You are a plant and here to stir up trouble. You claim to be so concerned about Resistance faithful. What a farce. Are there so many cases of molestation going on in the tiny Resistance chapels? Is this a joke. Ah, but we know there certainly are MANY molestations happening the the Novus Ordo, and FSSP, and SSPX. Those are all over the news with confessions from the perpetrators and jail time. But what does Boru do? She (it?) focuses on the Resistance. Hmmm.
Angelus, take a chill pill. You're going to give yourself a heart attack one day.
Focus.
I sincerely reside in Ireland and I sincerely joined Cathinfo. to find out more about this Moran fellow because I sincerely have Resistance friends that matter to us as a family - we are Godparents. As I stated, I did not start the thread, and the information I outlined came from other posters particularly Baldwin, trento, and the videos of Dr. Kavanagh himself.
When a cleric is laicized - which was officially done by the Church - for abuse of a minor - he is to be referred to as Mr.
In Moran case he had been a deacon, not a priest anyway.
Less than three months of being laicized as a novus ordo deacon in the West Indies, Bp. Ballini has him on the Irish Resistance circuit as a fully fledged Traditional PRIEST.
Now this raises some very serious questions:
(1) Who 'ordained' this man (if he was 'ordained')? Canon Law. 293 - CHAPTER II. THE ENROLLMENT, OR INCARDINATION, OF CLERICS: A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.
(2) How is it possible that a novus ordo deacon can suddenly be a traditional priest in less than three months? How is this right? How is this prudent?
(3) Why was there such secrecy surrounding his 'ordination', his name and his background, if Moran is an innocent man? We know more now thanks to the Kavanaghs and the Bishop of Derry, however before this exposure, this man was shrouded in secrecy refusing to even give his name. In June, he even wrote to Mathew the moderator of CathInfo, demanding that he take this thread down while refusing to clarify the situation. When something is done in this much secrecy, the faithful have a right to question. If the SSPX started ordaining laicized clerics in secret (which they have not done so) I would be the first to voice my objection.
(4) Why did Archbishop Vigano make a public statement warning the Resistance faithful away from this man and stating that himself AND Bishop Williamson had been deceived. He also stated that he had warned Bp Ballini to have nothing to do with him. This would strongly indicate that it was himself who 'ordained' Moran and in some other capacity Moran deceived Bishop Williamson. And if this is true - then see question (1).
(5) Why is Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini ignoring the advice of Archbishop Vigano? Why did they insist on putting this man - who has a twenty year span of accusations hanging over his head - on the Mass circuit amidst young children?
(6) Why hasn't Bp. Morgan made a public statement clarifying the whole situation? This broke in June - and months earlier in Ireland - and it is now October. All that has happened is that a "Truthy" character joined CathInfo to engage in a smear campaign against the Kavanaghs without an ounce of sympathy for their unjust arrest in front of their frightened young children. This strongly suggests a total disregard for the welfare of children which aligns with the root of our concern.
Now, let us answer your 7 questions above:
(1) SEE Question 1: Canon.293
(2) https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 These facts have been verified by Brendan Kavanagh who contacted the Diocese of Martinique .
(3) The faithful do not know who ordained Moran and were not informed of his name or his background of accusations. So yes, he was shrouded in secrecy.
(4) No. I do not trust the judgement of Bp. Morgan or Bp. Ballini. I do not trust the judgement of Bishops who would place a laicized cleric - accused of child abuse from various different institutions - on the Mass circuit of families with young children.
(5) Yes, I believe that Archbishop Vigano was sincere when he made his statement about being deceived. The statement itself was posted on this thread somewhere. Others will verify its content.
(6) https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695
(7) Kerry Moran was put on the Irish Circuit which services a number of young families with children. He also went to the Kavanaghs - to hear the confessions of their young children in a private room. An innocent man would not do this.
Would you not agree that sunlight is the best remedy in this matter? Innocent parties do not fear the truth.
-
You are mistaken. I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. I am asking for transparency about claims that positive evidence exists-affidavits, letters, and docuмentation said to exonerate Fr. Moran. If that material truly clears his name, then showing it or allowing it to be verified would only help his cause. That is not unfair; that is how truth and justice work.
No one denies that bishops may support him personally, but support is not the same as proof. The Church has seen many cases where confidence in a cleric preceded later revelations. Charity and prudence require both compassion and verification.
As for acting in bad faith, I am simply repeating what is on record: an official decree, two prior dismissals, and the claim that bishops have seen secret evidence. Asking for clarity is not disloyalty; it is fidelity to the truth. The Resistance deserves honesty and transparency, not suspicion of anyone who asks reasonable questions.
You say, "if that material clears his name." With that statement, you have already presumed his guilt and you want him to provide evidence to you that he is not guilty. That is, you are asking him to prove a negative. And you are inverting normal criminal procedure that protects the innocent from unjust condemnation. It is certainly unfair. It is not how truth and justice works.
What you are repeating is trumped up charges without proper evidence. Why don't you spend your efforts contacting the accusers and getting the evidence for guilt instead of looking to the accused for evidence of his innocence?
-
Angelus, take a chill pill. You're going to give yourself a heart attack one day.
Focus.
I sincerely reside in Ireland and I sincerely joined Cathinfo. to find out more about this Moran fellow because I sincerely have Resistance friends that matter to us as a family - we are Godparents. As I stated, I did not start the thread, and the information I outlined came from other posters particularly Baldwin, trento, and the videos of Dr. Kavanagh himself.
When a cleric is laicized - which was officially done by the Church - for abuse of a minor - he is to be referred to as Mr.
In Moran case he had been a deacon, not a priest anyway.
Less than three months of being laicized as a novus ordo deacon in the West Indies, Bp. Ballini has him on the Irish Resistance circuit as a fully fledged Traditional PRIEST.
Now this raises some very serious questions:
(1) Who 'ordained' this man (if he was 'ordained')? Canon Law. 293 - CHAPTER II. THE ENROLLMENT, OR INCARDINATION, OF CLERICS: A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.
(2) How is it possible that a novus ordo deacon can suddenly be a traditional priest in less than three months? How is this right? How is this prudent?
(3) Why was there such secrecy surrounding his 'ordination', his name and his background, if Moran is an innocent man? We know more now thanks to the Kavanaghs and the Bishop of Derry, however before this exposure, this man was shrouded in secrecy refusing to even give his name. In June, he even wrote to Mathew the moderator of CathInfo, demanding that he take this thread down while refusing to clarify the situation. When something is done in this much secrecy, the faithful have a right to question. If the SSPX started ordaining laicized clerics in secret (which they have not done so) I would be the first to voice my objection.
(4) Why did Archbishop Vigano make a public statement warning the Resistance faithful away from this man and stating that himself AND Bishop Williamson had been deceived. He also stated that he had warned Bp Ballini to have nothing to do with him. This would strongly indicate that it was himself who 'ordained' Moran and in some other capacity Moran deceived Bishop Williamson. And if this is true - then see question (1).
(5) Why is Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini ignoring the advice of Archbishop Vigano? Why did they insist on putting this man - who has a twenty year span of accusations hanging over his head - on the Mass circuit amidst young children?
(6) Why hasn't Bp. Morgan made a public statement clarifying the whole situation? This broke in June - and months earlier in Ireland - and it is now October. All that has happened is that a "Truthy" character joined CathInfo to engage in a smear campaign against the Kavanaghs without an ounce of sympathy for their unjust arrest in front of their frightened young children. This strongly suggests a total disregard for the welfare of children which aligns with the root of our concern.
Now, let us answer your 7 questions above:
(1) SEE Question 1: Canon.293
(2) https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695 These facts have been verified by Brendan Kavanagh who contacted the Diocese of Martinique .
(3) The faithful do not know who ordained Moran and were not informed of his name or his background of accusations. So yes, he was shrouded in secrecy.
(4) No. I do not trust the judgement of Bp. Morgan or Bp. Ballini. I do not trust the judgement of Bishops who would place a laicized cleric - accused of child abuse from various different institutions - on the Mass circuit of families with young children.
(5) Yes, I believe that Archbishop Vigano was sincere when he made his statement about being deceived. The statement itself was posted on this thread somewhere. Others will verify its content.
(6) https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/belfast-telegraph/20250415/281556591665695
(7) Kerry Moran was put on the Irish Circuit which services a number of young families with children. He also went to the Kavanaghs - to hear the confessions of their young children in a private room. An innocent man would not do this.
Would you not agree that sunlight is the best remedy in this matter? Innocent parties do not fear the truth.
Same tactics. Fill the posts with walls of innuendo, gossip, newspaper reports and antichrist Vatican "convictions." All with the goal of staining the reputation of the Resistance bishops.
As far as I can tell, every one of your questions have been answered in previous posts. They must pay you by the word.
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001824#msg1001824) 2025-10-09, 2:08:24 PM
You say, "if that material clears his name." With that statement, you have already presumed his guilt and you want him to provide evidence to you that he is not guilty. That is, you are asking him to prove a negative. And you are inverting normal criminal procedure that protects the innocent from unjust condemnation. It is certainly unfair. It is not how truth and justice works.
What you are repeating is trumped up charges without proper evidence. Why don't you spend your efforts contacting the accusers and getting the evidence for guilt instead of looking to the accused for evidence of his innocence?
Fr. Moran was found guilty in a canonical process, and that fact is on record. I am not questioning that finding, nor am I presuming guilt. My concern is with the claims of exonerating evidence that have been cited but not made publicly verifiable. Asking for transparency about such evidence is reasonable and entirely consistent with prudence, justice, and canonical accountability.
This is not a demand that he “prove a negative” in a civil sense. It is a request to examine positive docuмentation that allegedly clears him. Truth and clarity do not contradict respect for bishops or the Resistance; they ensure decisions affecting the faithful are trustworthy and transparent.
-
Fr. Moran was found guilty in a canonical process, and that fact is on record. I am not questioning that finding, nor am I presuming guilt. My concern is with the claims of exonerating evidence that have been cited but not made publicly verifiable. Asking for transparency about such evidence is reasonable and entirely consistent with prudence, justice, and canonical accountability.
This is not a demand that he “prove a negative” in a civil sense. It is a request to examine positive docuмentation that allegedly clears him. Truth and clarity do not contradict respect for bishops or the Resistance; they ensure decisions affecting the faithful are trustworthy and transparent.
Yes you are absolutely correct. The onus is on this laicised deacon to prove his innocence as he has been found guilty though a canonical process.
-
Fr. Moran was found guilty in a canonical process, and that fact is on record. I am not questioning that finding, nor am I presuming guilt. My concern is with the claims of exonerating evidence that have been cited but not made publicly verifiable. Asking for transparency about such evidence is reasonable and entirely consistent with prudence, justice, and canonical accountability.
This is not a demand that he “prove a negative” in a civil sense. It is a request to examine positive docuмentation that allegedly clears him. Truth and clarity do not contradict respect for bishops or the Resistance; they ensure decisions affecting the faithful are trustworthy and transparent.
Again, you are trusting untrustworthy Vatican operatives. You say you are a member of the Resistance. You are either very confused or you are lying.
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001829#msg1001829) 2025-10-09, 2:46:23 PM
Again, you are trusting untrustworthy Vatican operatives. You say you are a member of the Resistance. You are either very confused or you are lying.
Even though the Conciliar Church is heretical, that does not remove the responsibility to act with prudence and justice. If Fr. Moran has been misrepresented or subjected to unfair canonical procedures, the faithful still have a duty to seek the truth and ensure that justice is done. Requesting transparency and clarity about the evidence supporting or opposing him is entirely reasonable and consistent with Catholic principles. Criticism of the heretical Conciliar Church does not conflict with defending the integrity and reputation of a priest who may have been wronged.
-
Are you sure that + Morgan called the police? I haven't seen proof of that...did I miss that docuмent/ correspondence? You need proof for qualifying a fact... Did the police headquarter announce that?
I am wondering if all this is actually going to court...is it in the works?
Being a FAKE priest is not against the law, is it?
It may not have been Bp. Morgan. I suppose it could have been Bp. Ballini. But it was a bishop that Dr. K had known for 15 years. Since Fr. Morgan had been the SSPX British superior for many years, it seems likely that it was Bp. Morgan that Dr. K was referring to.
You can hear Dr. K's description of it starting at timestamp 4:20 in the YouTube video in the OP of this thread. To be precise, Dr. K says that it was Fr. Moran with "the support of this bishop" who called the police and reported Dr. K for harassment.
I really don't know why this fact is so alarming to you. You seem to be confused. Why do you ask "Being a FAKE priest is not against the law is it?" The priest, Fr. Moran, was not being arrested. Dr. K and his wife were arrested for harassing Fr. Moran and, apparently, the Bishop. Did you not understand this?
-
Even though the Conciliar Church is heretical, that does not remove the responsibility to act with prudence and justice. If Fr. Moran has been misrepresented or subjected to unfair canonical procedures, the faithful still have a duty to seek the truth and ensure that justice is done. Requesting transparency and clarity about the evidence supporting or opposing him is entirely reasonable and consistent with Catholic principles. Criticism of the heretical Conciliar Church does not conflict with defending the integrity and reputation of a priest who may have been wronged.
So seek the truth. Contact your trustworthy Vatican and tell them to hand over the docuмents so you can ensure that justice is done. By all means tell Tucho Fernandez, your heretical and prudential justice administrator of Catholic principles.
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001838#msg1001838) 2025-10-09, 3:20:05 PMQuote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001838#msg1001838) 2025-10-09, 3:20:05 PM
So seek the truth. Contact your trustworthy Vatican and tell them to hand over the docuмents so you can ensure that justice is done. By all means tell Tucho Fernandez, your heretical and prudential justice administrator of Catholic principles.
I am not asking anyone to be “trustworthy” or to grant legitimacy where none is recognized. I am asking for verifiable, docuмented facts about Kerry Moran’s canonical and criminal status, which are matters of public record. The Martinique diocesan chancery itself confirmed in writing that Moran was dismissed from the clerical state following a criminal trial and found guilty of acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment with a minor (email from “Abbé” Benoit Paul-Joseph, 10 March 2025, chancellerie@eglisemartinique.fr). Seeking this kind of docuмentation is not a matter of allegiance, but of ensuring the truth is known and justice is properly understood.
And regardless of ultimate guilt, Archbishop Viganò warned In an email that Kerry Moran is “insidious” and must have no contact with children or young people (14 March 2025)
-
I am not asking anyone to be “trustworthy” or to grant legitimacy where none is recognized. I am asking for verifiable, docuмented facts about Kerry Moran’s canonical and criminal status, which are matters of public record. The Martinique diocesan chancery itself confirmed in writing that Moran was dismissed from the clerical state following a criminal trial and found guilty of acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment with a minor (email from “Abbé” Benoit Paul-Joseph, 10 March 2025, chancellerie@eglisemartinique.fr). Seeking this kind of docuмentation is not a matter of allegiance, but of ensuring the truth is known and justice is properly understood.
And regardless of ultimate guilt, Archbishop Viganò warned In an email that Kerry Moran is “insidious” and must have no contact with children or young people (14 March 2025)
From: <carlomariavigano@*****>
Sent: Friday 14 March 2025 21:32
To: <*****@*****>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Kerry ‘Ciaran’ Moran in the UK
Dear *******
What I can say regarding Kerry Moran is that he is a very insidious man who
deceived me and Bp. Williamson. I do not know whether he is guilty or inno-
cent of the crimes he is accused of. I can only say that any relationship with
him must be avoided and he must not have any contact with children and
young people. Bp Ballini is informed about this, but unfortunately he has not
taken any measures and continues to avail himself of his collaboration.
Kyrie eleison
-
I am not asking anyone to be “trustworthy” or to grant legitimacy where none is recognized. I am asking for verifiable, docuмented facts about Kerry Moran’s canonical and criminal status, which are matters of public record. The Martinique diocesan chancery itself confirmed in writing that Moran was dismissed from the clerical state following a criminal trial and found guilty of acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment with a minor (email from “Abbé” Benoit Paul-Joseph, 10 March 2025, chancellerie@eglisemartinique.fr). Seeking this kind of docuмentation is not a matter of allegiance, but of ensuring the truth is known and justice is properly understood.
And regardless of ultimate guilt, Archbishop Viganò warned In an email that Kerry Moran is “insidious” and must have no contact with children or young people (14 March 2025)
Sorry, ask your trustworthy source at the Martinique diocesan chancery for these "matters of public record." To do so will be to ensure that truth is known and justice is properly understood. So get to it and get back to us. Thanks.
-
Sorry, ask your trustworthy source at the Martinique diocesan chancery for these "matters of public record." To do so, will be to ensure that truth is known and justice is properly understood. So get to it and get back to us. Thanks.
From: <carlomariavigano@*****>
Sent: Friday 14 March 2025 21:32
To: <*****@*****>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Kerry ‘Ciaran’ Moran in the UK
Dear *******
What I can say regarding Kerry Moran is that he is a very insidious man who
deceived me and Bp. Williamson. I do not know whether he is guilty or inno-
cent of the crimes he is accused of. I can only say that any relationship with
him must be avoided and he must not have any contact with children and
young people. Bp Ballini is informed about this, but unfortunately he has not
taken any measures and continues to avail himself of his collaboration.
Kyrie eleison
-
Sorry, ask your trustworthy source at the Martinique diocesan chancery for these "matters of public record." To do so, will be to ensure that truth is known and justice is properly understood. So get to it and get back to us. Thanks.
You would drink the Kool Aid at Jonestown rather than betray your cult wouldn’t you? Insanity.🤡
Thankfully there are sane people on this thread who do actually care about safeguarding children.
-
From: <carlomariavigano@*****>
Sent: Friday 14 March 2025 21:32
To: <*****@*****>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Kerry ‘Ciaran’ Moran in the UK
Dear *******
What I can say regarding Kerry Moran is that he is a very insidious man who
deceived me and Bp. Williamson. I do not know whether he is guilty or inno-
cent of the crimes he is accused of. I can only say that any relationship with
him must be avoided and he must not have any contact with children and
young people. Bp Ballini is informed about this, but unfortunately he has not
taken any measures and continues to avail himself of his collaboration.
Kyrie eleison
Are you 100% certain that this email is not fake? Sounds a bit over-wrought. Not careful and measured as his writing tends to be. And the source for this, which was revealed in an earlier post on this thread, seems to be your friends in Martinique: "our correspondents of the diocese of Fort-de-France were also in touch with Archbishop Vigano and received this reply from him."
Has Vigano ever confirmed publicly that this email is from him?
I guess you have another item or two on your todo list. Better get cracking. Justice awaits your diligent efforts.
-
You would drink the Kool Aid at Jonestown rather than betray your cult wouldn’t you? Insanity.🤡
Thankfully there are sane people on this thread who do actually care about safeguarding children.
My cult? I don't attend Mass at a Resistance chapel regularly. I do so every few months or so.
My cult is the Roman Catholic Church. And false accusation made against a priest with flimsy evidence and gossip is not Catholic. It is a sin against the Second Commandment and the Eighth.
-
Are you 100% certain that this email is not fake? Sounds a bit over-wrought. Not careful and measured as his writing tends to be. And the source for this, which was revealed in an earlier post on this thread, seems to be your friends in Martinique: "our correspondents of the diocese of Fort-de-France were also in touch with Archbishop Vigano and received this reply from him."
Has Vigano ever confirmed publicly that this email is from him?
I guess you have another item or two on your todo list. Better get cracking. Justice awaits your diligent efforts.
Attached is a link to the screenshot of the email in question:
-
Attached is a link to the screenshot of the email in question: https://ibb.co/FZ9qHKr (https://ibb.co/FZ9qHKr)
Upload your image to Cathinfo. I'm not clicking on your malware link.
-
Upload your image to Cathinfo. I'm not clicking on your malware link.
Let me figure out how
-
Upload your image to Cathinfo. I'm not clicking on your malware link.
Hope this works
Edit: I reuploaded, I did not mean to share the name or the email address.
-
Hope this works
So, it comes from...wait for it...Dr. K. You can see in the email it was sent to Brendan K.
Of course, the sending email domain is blacked out. So just ask Dr. K when Vigano's email is and contact Vigano to confirm that he wrote that email message to Brendan K.
Easy peasy. Snap to it. No time to waste. Got to get to the bottom of it ....for sake of the children.
-
Quote from: Angelus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77304.msg1001860#msg1001860) 2025-10-09, 4:33:04 PM
So, it comes from...wait for it...Dr. K. You can see in the email it was sent to Brendan K.
Of course, the sending email domain is blacked out. So just ask Dr. K when Vigano's email is and contact Vigano to confirm that he wrote that email message to Brendan K.
Easy peasy. Snap to it. No time to waste. Got to get to the bottom of it ....for sake of the children.
I realized after uploading the screenshot that I had not fully redacted a personal name and email address, so I reuploaded a corrected version with that information properly covered. The content of the email itself remains unchanged and continues to show that Archbishop Viganò warned about Kerry Moran and that he must have no contact with children or young people.
-
I realized after uploading the screenshot that I had not fully redacted a personal name and email address, so I reuploaded a corrected version with that information properly covered. The content of the email itself remains unchanged and continues to show that Archbishop Viganò warned about Kerry Moran and that he must have no contact with children or young people.
A friend in Ireland says that a nun in Cork called Sister Irene was warned by +Vigano to avoid Kerry/Ciaran Moran. He knows Sr Irene and said she took +Vigano’s email seriously and followed his advice.
-
I realized after uploading the screenshot that I had not fully redacted a personal name and email address, so I reuploaded a corrected version with that information properly covered. The content of the email itself remains unchanged and continues to show that Archbishop Viganò warned about Kerry Moran and that he must have no contact with children or young people.
No, the screenshot you posted shows a probably doctored email address for Vigano.
To prove me wrong, contact Vigano directly. Apparently you have his email.
And, by the way, how did you get a screenshot of Brendan K's personal (probably fake) email from Vigano? Are you Brendan K?
Have you contacted the Vatican yet? And how about Martinique? We must protect, protect, protect.
-
A friend in Ireland says that a nun in Cork called Sister Irene was warned by +Vigano to avoid Kerry/Ciaran Moran. He knows Sr Irene and said she took +Vigano’s email seriously and followed his advice.
Are you still posting on Cathinfo at 12:47 am British time? Where is your husband? Does he know that you stay up all night chatting with strangers on the interwebs?
First thing tomorrow (er..today for you), I want you also to call the Vatican and Martinique and email Vigano (you can get his email from your buddy Brendan K.). Then we can compare your notes to what MaxKolbe found out and we can finally be assured that justice has been done. The children's safety is at risk. Don't let them down.
-
No, the screenshot you posted shows a probably doctored email address for Vigano.
To prove me wrong, contact Vigano directly. Apparently you have his email.
And, by the way, how did you get a screenshot of Brendan K's personal (probably fake) email from Vigano? Are you Brendan K?
Have you contacted the Vatican yet? And how about Martinique? We must protect, protect, protect.
So do you require a screenshot verifying a screenshot?
-
It may not have been Bp. Morgan. I suppose it could have been Bp. Ballini. But it was a bishop that Dr. K had known for 15 years. Since Fr. Morgan had been the SSPX British superior for many years, it seems likely that it was Bp. Morgan that Dr. K was referring to.
You can hear Dr. K's description of it starting at timestamp 4:20 in the YouTube video in the OP of this thread. To be precise, Dr. K says that it was Fr. Moran with "the support of this bishop" who called the police and reported Dr. K for harassment.
I really don't know why this fact is so alarming to you. You seem to be confused. Why do you ask "Being a FAKE priest is not against the law is it?" The priest, Fr. Moran, was not being arrested. Dr. K and his wife were arrested for harassing Fr. Moran and, apparently, the Bishop. Did you not understand this?
It may not have been Bp. Morgan. I suppose it could have been Bp. Ballini. But it was a bishop that Dr. K had known for 15 years. Since Fr. Morgan had been the SSPX British superior for many years, it seems likely that it was Bp. Morgan that Dr. K was referring to.
You can hear Dr. K's description of it starting at timestamp 4:20 in the YouTube video in the OP of this thread. To be precise, Dr. K says that it was Fr. Moran with "the support of this bishop" who called the police and reported Dr. K for harassment.
I really don't know why this fact is so alarming to you. You seem to be confused. Why do you ask "Being a FAKE priest is not against the law is it?" The priest, Fr. Moran, was not being arrested. Dr. K and his wife were arrested for harassing Fr. Moran and, apparently, the Bishop. Did you not understand this?
You are correct, I really appreciate the Timestamp. Excuse my slow internet. Even at Timestamp 4:02 Drk admits he forgot about these emails ... was this from the Sept 8 2024 mass at his barn, with fr Moran? Is that a fair question? It would have been a few months back for him to forget...he is very intelligent.
So Fr Moran has nothing to hide if he contacted the cops. (In Argentina it is illegal to be an active Catholic clergy without NO bishop's approval) . That is why i asked .
So, is DrK sueing the UK police, nowadays?
-
You are correct, I really appreciate the Timestamp. Excuse my slow internet. Even at Timestamp 4:02 Drk admits he forgot about these emails ... was this from the Sept 8 2024 mass at his barn, with fr Moran? Is that a fair question? It would have been a few months back for him to forget...he is very intelligent.
So Fr Moran has nothing to hide if he contacted the cops. (In Argentina it is illegal to be an active Catholic clergy without NO bishop's approval) . That is why i asked .
So, is DrK sueing the UK police, nowadays?
Sorry I'm not sure about the timing of the Mass or anything having to do with Brendan K.
I agree, it would seem that Moran has not broken any civil laws that the UK authorities would care about (such as molesting children in Martinique), which is apparently what Dr. K and many on this thread have been accusing him of.
-
Are you still posting on Cathinfo at 12:47 am British time? Where is your husband? Does he know that you stay up all night chatting with strangers on the interwebs?
First thing tomorrow (er..today for you), I want you also to call the Vatican and Martinique and email Vigano (you can get his email from your buddy Brendan K.). Then we can compare your notes to what MaxKolbe found out and we can finally be assured that justice has been done. The children's safety is at risk. Don't let them down.
Yeah my husband was there at the time. Not everyone is a nine to fiver y’know.
Stop making excuses for a child abuser. There is official docuмentation that this priest was laicised and the reason why. its already been shared many times,
-
Concerning Fr(?) Moran, people have been throwing "child abuser" and "child predator" around for a while now. It was pointed out back in June/July, and again within the past couple days, that there is no credible evidence that would justify assigning those labels to Fr(?) Moran, at least at this time... which is incredible considering this has been going on for 4,5,+ months now..and still nobody can say exactly what Fr(?) Moran did?
-
Concerning Fr(?) Moran, people have been throwing "child abuser" and "child predator" around for a while now. It was pointed out back in June/July, and again within the past couple days, that there is no credible evidence that would justify assigning those labels to Fr(?) Moran, at least at this time... which is incredible considering this has been going on for 4,5,+ months now..and still nobody can say exactly what Fr(?)
Laicised by former diocese of Martinique for child abuse.
Reported in Belfast Telegraph
https://x.com/ismiseliam/status/1912068366174396700?s=46
-
Laicised by former diocese of Martinique for child abuse.
Reported in Belfast Telegraph
https://x.com/ismiseliam/status/1912068366174396700?s=46
That he was found guilty of an "offense against the sixth commandment...with a minor" has been known for many months. Let me know how you came to the conclusion that he "abused" a "child" with this being the extent of what we know concerning his actions:
Can. 1398— § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he:
1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;
-
That he was found guilty of an "offense against the sixth commandment...with a minor" has been known for many months. Let me know how you came to the conclusion that he "abused" a "child" with this being the extent of what we know concerning his actions:
Can. 1398— § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he:
1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;
So you’re saying he could have had sex with a vulnerable adult or mentally retarded adult? Got it.
I’m in UK and the scandal about this defrocked deacon is known about in SSPX circles as well as wider Catholic circles here. Remember I don’t attend the Resistance. I know people who have come across this individual before he restyled himself as a ‘trad’ and from what I’ve heard, ladies aren’t his cup of tea. The age of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ consent in Martinique is 15.
-
So you’re saying he could have had sex with a vulnerable adult or mentally retarded adult? Got it.
I'm not saying he did any specific thing, tardo. That's the whole point. We don't know. You and every other "concerned trad" are labeling him as a child abuser and a child predator. Was he charged by the state? How does no one have that information after half a year?
-
I'm not saying he did any specific thing, tardo. That's the whole point. We don't know. You and every other "concerned trad" are labeling him as a child abuser and a child predator. Was he charged by the state? How does no one have that information after half a year?
The terms ‘6th commandment’ and ‘with a minor’ are pretty strong indicators. Plus the information I have because I’m actually IN THE UK and KNOW people who used to be acquainted with him. Certainly this individual should not be saying public Masses or be in any contact with families and children until further investigation. He’s been defrocked. That’s a fact.
-
The terms ‘6th commandment’ and ‘with a minor’ are pretty strong indicators. Plus the information I have because I’m actually IN THE UK and KNOW people who used to be acquainted with him. Certainly this individual should not be saying public Masses or be in any contact with families and children until further investigation. He’s been defrocked. That’s a fact.
Now you are conveniently forgetting "with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason; or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection" :confused: Which is it, is he a child abuser, or a retard abuser? What's the "information" you have? That some judgemental trads thought he was a little fruity? Was the "child" in question, say, 17 years old? Where is the criminal case against him by the state? It's been half a year, where is this information? None of you UK concerned trads have taken the time to contact Martinique State officials? There are so many questions left unanswered
-
That he was found guilty of an "offense against the sixth commandment...with a minor" has been known for many months. Let me know how you came to the conclusion that he "abused" a "child" with this being the extent of what we know concerning his actions:
Can. 1398— § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he: 1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;
Kerry Moran was "punished with deprivation of office...dismissal from the clerical state" due to being found guilty of committing "an offence against the sixth commandment to the Decalogue with a minor".
In Canon law, a minor is defined as a person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen.
The Sixth Commandment is 'adultery' which is defined as a sɛҳuąƖ act. sɛҳuąƖ act with a minor = abuse.
Whether our children are 6 or 16, do we really want this character around our children?
Can it really be any clearer?
Or are you suggesting that that it's all ok if the 'minor' turns out to be 17?
-
From: <carlomariavigano@*****>
Sent: Friday 14 March 2025 21:32
To: <*****@*****>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Kerry ‘Ciaran’ Moran in the UK
Dear *******
What I can say regarding Kerry Moran is that he is a very insidious man who
deceived me and Bp. Williamson. I do not know whether he is guilty or inno-
cent of the crimes he is accused of. I can only say that any relationship with
him must be avoided and he must not have any contact with children and
young people. Bp Ballini is informed about this, but unfortunately he has not
taken any measures and continues to avail himself of his collaboration.
Kyrie eleison
This is farcical. Abp Vigano is very long experienced diplomat knowing to choose his words very carefully and cautiously. And we are expected to believe that he is writing emails at 10.32 pm (Italian time) to complete strangers making the above vague points and then doesnt even sign it. More fool anyone who believes that.
Isnt it funny how these so called Trads all of sudden trust Conciliar bishops for telling the truth when they spend most of the time criticising them for lying and destroying the Faith. Of course that doesnt fit into the agenda of the likes of Boru and others.
If Boru does appear today, what persona will he/she adopt? Their masculine persona calling people mate or the Irish housewife? And also Boru, you say that you are concerned about your godchild (if they even exist) in England but what about the parents of that child? Are they too stupid to 'protect' their own child?
-
A friend in Ireland says that a nun in Cork called Sister Irene was warned by +Vigano to avoid Kerry/Ciaran Moran. He knows Sr Irene and said she took +Vigano’s email seriously and followed his advice.
Well this helps verify the statement Archbishop Vigano made. Thank you. I had heard that Sr. Irene had distanced herself from Bp. Ballini but I did not know why. This may explain it. We knew Sr. Irene from her days living near us. She paints beautiful icons and was showing myself and my daughter her techniques. I then lost touch with her when she moved to Cork.
-
Now you are conveniently forgetting "with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason; or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection" :confused: Which is it, is he a child abuser, or a retard abuser? What's the "information" you have? That some judgemental trads thought he was a little fruity? Was the "child" in question, say, 17 years old? Where is the criminal case against him by the state? It's been half a year, where is this information? None of you UK concerned trads have taken the time to contact Martinique State officials? There are so many questions left unanswered
Revision: Purported email from Conciliar fake-bishop, published in anti-Resistance Hewkonian "The Recusant", specified "minor"
-
Well this helps verify the statement Archbishop Vigano made. Thank you. I had heard that Sr. Irene had distanced herself from Bp. Ballini but I did not know why. This may explain it. We knew Sr. Irene from her days living near us. She paints beautiful icons and was showing myself and my daughter her techniques. I then lost touch with her when she moved to Cork.
Sr Irene distanced herself from Bp Ballini many years ago as everyone in Ireland knows and relied on Sedevantist priests and others for a time. She is probably the least reliable witness you could bring forward, but that is another story.
-
Kerry Moran was "punished with deprivation of office...dismissal from the clerical state" due to being found guilty of committing "an offence against the sixth commandment to the Decalogue with a minor".
In Canon law, a minor is defined as a person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen.
The Sixth Commandment is 'adultery' which is defined as a sɛҳuąƖ act. sɛҳuąƖ act with a minor = abuse.
Whether our children are 6 or 16, do we really want this character around our children?
Can it really be any clearer?
Or are you suggesting that that it's all ok if the 'minor' turns out to be 17?
Yeah, well, that's where we disagree. Us "trads", unlike the modern world, are not supposed to view a, say, 17 year old as a helpless "child" who can do no wrong. A 17 year old is well past the age of reason and can engage in any number of voluntary mortal sins.
If Fr(?) Moran is in fact guilty of any sin against the sixth or ninth commandments with another person, of course he should not be offering masses or being alone with children. But when just about the only "evidence" thus far is a vague statement from a Conciliar "Bishop", or purported emails from +Vigano published by anti-Resistance Hewkonians, that is not sufficient enough to label him a "child abuser"
-
Kerry Moran was "punished with deprivation of office...dismissal from the clerical state" due to being found guilty of committing "an offence against the sixth commandment to the Decalogue with a minor".
In Canon law, a minor is defined as a person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen.
The Sixth Commandment is 'adultery' which is defined as a sɛҳuąƖ act. sɛҳuąƖ act with a minor = abuse.
Whether our children are 6 or 16, do we really want this character around our children?
Can it really be any clearer?
Or are you suggesting that that it's all ok if the 'minor' turns out to be 17?
Have you contacted +Vigano, or Martinique Church officials, or Martinique State officials in order to obtain additional information regarding Moran? Has anyone done this?
-
This is farcical. Abp Vigano is very long experienced diplomat knowing to choose his words very carefully and cautiously. And we are expected to believe that he is writing emails at 10.32 pm (Italian time) to complete strangers making the above vague points and then doesnt even sign it. More fool anyone who believes that....
If Boru does appear today, what persona will he/she adopt? Their masculine persona calling people mate or the Irish housewife?
I have appeared - as Boru the Warrior for Truth - and before you deem things farcical you really need to read all the information and educate yourself first. Abp. Vigano was clearly responding to Brendan Kavanagh's inquiry - so, no, not a complete stranger - and I don't know of anyone sending their email messages with a signature.
-
Again, you are trusting untrustworthy Vatican operatives. You say you are a member of the Resistance. You are either very confused or you are lying.
It took an enemy of tradition, Christina Niles, to expose much of these sorry affairs in the SSPX, and a few years ago it was an atheistic Swedish docuмentary that did the dirty work. We might not like these hack journalists who have an axe to grind, but who is dealing with this within traditionalist circles?
It's perfectly reasonable to be someone who attends resistance masses yet wants assurances about their priests.
Has Archbishop Vigano has cut off contacts with the Resistance ? He did send a long message of support to be read out at Bishop Williamson's funeral.
-
I have appeared - as Boru the Warrior for Truth - and before you deem things farcical you really need to read all the information and educate yourself first. Abp. Vigano was clearly responding to Brendan Kavanagh's inquiry - so, no, not a complete stranger - and I don't know of anyone sending their email messages with a signature.
You clearly dont understand. An Archbishop would not reply to any random person sending an email. If he replied he would exercise caution as people can be two faced and have different personas like yourself. I see you are in your masculine matey persona on another thread. It must be very tiring!
As for an email signature, clearly you have never emailed a priest or bishop. I dont know of any who do not sign of with some kind of siganture.
You have to try a but to bring some REAL evidence.
-
Have you contacted +Vigano, or Martinique Church officials, or Martinique State officials in order to obtain additional information regarding Moran? Has anyone done this?
Publishing the following details about Kerry Michael Moran’s dismissal from the clerical state and conviction for acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor, such as those confirmed by the Chancellerie of Martinique and reported by the Belfast Telegraph, would be a serious crime if it were not true. The fact that these statements have been officially issued strongly supports their credibility:
From: <chancellerie@eglisemartinique.fr>
Sent: Monday 10 March 2025 31:12
To: <*****@*****>
Subject: Re: Enquiry about Kerry Moran in Martinique
I would like to inform you that Kerry Michael Moran, incardinated and or-
dained deacon in the diocese of Fort-de-France (Martinique) on 26/08/2017,
was dismissed from the clerical state on 6/02/2024 following a criminal trial
opened on 19/07/22 at the request of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith. Kerry Moran was found guilty of acts contrary to the sixth command-
ment with a minor (c. 1398 §1, 1° CIC; art. , 1° SST), a conviction confirmed
by letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on April 24 2024.
May God have mercy on him and on us all.
Abbé Benoit Paul-Joseph
Chancellier intérimaire
Archevêché
5-7 rue du Révérend Père Pinchon
97200 Fort-de-France
0596 63 70 70
(Martinique) on August 26 2017, was dismissed from the clerical state on June 6, 2024
following a criminal trial opened on July 19, 2022 at the request of the Diacestry for the
Doctrine of Faith.
“[Named] was found guilty of acts contrary to the sixth commandment (adultery) with
a minor, a conviction confirmed by a letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith
on April 24, 2024.”
The concerns relayed by the Archdiocese of Cardiff are believed to relate to the ex-
cleric’s conduct with minors.
It is understood the individual was not a priest at the time, and was instead a volunteer
within the diocese, holding an unofficial role. Belfast Telegraph. (2024, June 6). Fears over defrocked priest sparked Derry bishop’s warning to Catholics about illicit group holding Mass. Belfast Telegraph.
-
EU.
Suscipe Domine web
diaduit (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=48eb9a219eee3880f871e942b8bb8358&action=profile;u=578)
#9
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png)June 30, 2025, 03:30:04 PM (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=48eb9a219eee3880f871e942b8bb8358&msg=651517)
"...So a Garda background check would operate for Martinique? B+ Ballini garda vets everyone in his company as I was told by resistance attendees whose sons had to be vetted to travel to Italy for some gathering.
Piano man has mocked a thread on cath info on this whole escapade but he fails to include a link to the thread which would actually show that Resistance trads want to know about Fr FAke and make sure that it is dealt with and ..."
***
Is Bishop Ballini stuck in Italy? Does Guarda cover all of EU?
NO bishops were behind this vetting situation... which almost seems like illegal . I mean, what crime did + Ballini commit? Evidence must be gaining credibility for the authorities to take this so seriously.
Fr Moran, he actually went to the police with DrK private emails... confusing for me.
Did anyone call the diocese in Martinique?
-
Publishing the following details about Kerry Michael Moran’s dismissal from the clerical state and conviction for acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor, such as those confirmed by the Chancellerie of Martinique and reported by the Belfast Telegraph, would be a serious crime if it were not true. The fact that these statements have been officially issued strongly supports their credibility:
The text of a private email, shared with and published by the Hewkonian "The Recusant" and the secular Belfast Telegraph is considered "officially issued"? Is there an actual official, public statement by the Church officials in Martinique that I am missing? Has anyone contacted Martinique Church officials to confirm what is contained in the text of the private email? Has anyone attempted to contact Martinique State officials regarding the apparent lack of criminal charges against Moran there?
-
The text of a private email, shared with and published by the Hewkonian "The Recusant" and the secular Belfast Telegraph is considered "officially issued"? Is there an actual official, public statement by the Church officials in Martinique that I am missing? Has anyone contacted Martinique Church officials to confirm what is contained in the text of the private email? Has anyone attempted to contact Martinique State officials regarding the apparent lack of criminal charges against Moran there?
If you would like to verify this independently, feel free to reach out to:
Official Contact List – Diocese of Fort-de-France & French Bishops’ Conference
Diocese of Fort-de-France (Martinique):
• Chancellerie: chancellerie@eglisemartinique.fr
• Secrétaire de l’Évêque: secretaire.eveque@eglisemartinique.fr
• Signalement / Abuse Reporting Office: signalement@eglisemartinique.fr
Conférence des Évêques de France (Victims’ Office):
• Parole de Victime: paroledevictime@cef.fr
-
If you would like to verify this independently
Do you consider the text of a private email shared (presumably by Kavanagh) with, and published by, the Hewkonian "The Recusant" and the secular Belfast Telegraph to be "officially issued" by the Chancellerie of Martinique? Have you verified what was in the text of the email? Has anyone you know verified what was in the text of the email?
-
Do you consider the text of a private email shared (presumably by Kavanagh) with, and published by, the Hewkonian "The Recusant" and the secular Belfast Telegraph to be "officially issued" by the Chancellerie of Martinique? Have you verified what was in the text of the email? Has anyone you know verified what was in the text of the email?
If a national newspaper such as The Telegraph published details of a priest being defrocked for child abuse and this was a falsehood, the priest could sue for libel. The article would be removed with an apology. Yet it hasn’t been removed. Newspapers have legal teams for this reason. Not interested in this Recusant, virtually no one reads it.
-
Do you consider the text of a private email shared (presumably by Kavanagh) with, and published by, the Hewkonian "The Recusant" and the secular Belfast Telegraph to be "officially issued" by the Chancellerie of Martinique? Have you verified what was in the text of the email? Has anyone you know verified what was in the text of the email?
This was not simply a “private email” shared informally, it was an official communication from the diocesan chancery, issued under the authority of the Church in Martinique. Publishing or issuing such information falsely would carry serious legal and canonical consequences, which underscores the credibility and weight of the communication.
-
Screen shot of 3 Lepanto Institute browser results about Fr. Moran, even an SSPX archive tag, but they don't seem to open... maybe scrubbed? One was posted just 3 days ago, but link says page not found. Strange, no?
"...in summer of 2024, Fr. M was filmed saying mass in a small chapel..."
-
This was not simply a “private email” shared informally, it was an official communication from the diocesan chancery, issued under the authority of the Church in Martinique. Publishing or issuing such information falsely would carry serious legal and canonical consequences, which underscores the credibility and weight of the communication.
Right, the purported email (that we, AFAIK, have only seen the plain text of), is said to have been sent from the Martinique Chancery. Since you and all other concerned trads that I have communicated with have refused to answer my questions, I will have to assume:
A) There has been no public statement given from Martinique Church authorities regarding Moran
B) You, and any others that I have posed the question to, have not even attempted to confirm the authenticity of the information contained in the text of the email by contacting Martinique Church authorities
C) You, and any others that I have posed the question to, do not even know anyone who has attempted to confirm the authenticity of the information contained in the text of the email by contacting Martinique Church authorities
D) You and the others I have asked have not, and do not even know anyone who has, attempted to contact Martinique State officials regarding the apparent lack of criminal charges against Moran there
-
Right, the purported email (that we, AFAIK, have only seen the plain text of), is said to have been sent from the Martinique Chancery. Since you and all other concerned trads that I have communicated with have refused to answer my questions, I will have to assume:
A) There has been no public statement given from Martinique Church authorities regarding Moran
B) You, and any others that I have posed the question to, have not even attempted to confirm the authenticity of the information contained in the text of the email by contacting Martinique Church authorities
C) You, and any others that I have posed the question to, do not even know anyone who has attempted to confirm the authenticity of the information contained in the text of the email by contacting Martinique Church authorities
D) You and the others I have asked have not, and do not even know anyone who has, attempted to contact Martinique State officials regarding the apparent lack of criminal charges against Moran there
I have reached out to every one of the emails I provided you, I gave them to you so that you can reach out as well.
-
It seems there’s a priest supporting Fr Ciaran Moran. Fr Linus Clovis. This priest is not connected to SSPX or SSPX resistance.
https://equusasinus.net/
-
This is the email shared in the link above
Note that the sections skip from 6 to 8 and from 11 to 13.
That could be the lawyers mistake, or the Novus Ordoite (Gareth Thomas Weaver) who is salivating to "recount [his] part in it to a national UK-wide news outlet which welcomes the authentic accounts of whistleblowers" could have removed them for some reason
Subject: Rebuttal to Revision Docuмent - Safeguarding Allegations Against Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran To: Editors, Where Peter Is
From: Alan R. Kershaw, Advocate for Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran
Dear Editors,
1. Introduction and Notification to Authorities
In the first instance, I bring to your immediate attention that this e-mail is copied to Mr. Paul Sanford, Chief Constable of Norfolk Police, a police force located in the jurisdiction of England and Wales for reasons which will become evident, hereinafter. Furthermore, matters addressed within this e-mail will be raised by my client Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran in a meeting that he will be having with Police Constables from the aforesaid Police Force. this afternoon. October 18. 2025.
2. Overview of Allegations and Context
I write to you in my capacity as legal advocate for Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran in response to the contents of the "Revision of SSPX Resistance Safeguarding" docuмent, which I understand has been circulated or referenced within your editorial purview. I am compelled to address and pre-emptively refute any and all allegations it any contains, particularly those that mirror or derive from the defamatory narrative advanced by the Archbishop of Martinique and Mr. Brendan Kavanagh.
3. Refutation of Allegations from Martinique
Firstly, it behoves me to highlight that my client is entirely innocent of the allegations levelled against him by the Ordinary of Martinique. These accusations are not only false but demonstrably retaliatory in nature.
4. Antecedents of the False Allegations
Mr. Moran submitted two (2) formal Vos estis lux mundi complaints concerning Archbishop David Macaire, OP, in light of serious concerns regarding maladministration and safeguarding failures within the Archdiocese of Martinique.
Around the same time, a laywoman of unimpeachable character submitted a letter to the competent canonical authority, expressing grave concern about Archbishop Macaire's conduct with younger men-specifically referencing a teenager who had been living with the archbishop sin since the age of fourteen (14) at the Episcopal Palace. Archbishop Macaire erroneously believed that Mr. Moran was the author of this letter. However, it has been definitively established that the woman in question stands by her testimony and authorship. Notably, one of the individuals she identified in her letter is among those who later falsely accused Mr. Moran.
This misattribution forms part of a broader pattern of retaliatory conduct by the Archbishop Macaire, which has culminated in the dissemination of unverified and defamatory allegations.
5. Sworn Affidavits and Retaliatory Conduct
The desperation of Archbishop Macaire to absolve himself of his reprehensible conduct is starkly illustrated by the existence of five (5) sworn affidavits. These docuмents attest that five (5) individuals in Martinique were each, separately and independently, approached by the Archbishop and urged to fabricate falsehoods about my client, Mr. Moran. Each of these individuals was appalled by the Archbishop's lack of integrity and refused to comply with his request. Their testimonies speak volumes about the character of the Archbishop Macaire and the scurrilous lengths to which he was willing to go in order to cover-up his own recidivist behaviour with younger men.
6. Clarification Regarding Gareth Thomas Weaver's Article
Gareth Thomas Weaver's recent article contains a deeply misleading assertion: that my client was "laicised in 2024 by the Diocese of Fort-de-France in Martinique after a canonical criminal process found him 'guilty of acts contrary to the sixth commandment with a minor." This claim is not only inaccurate; it is based on a newsletter so riddled with errors and lacking in credibility that it should never have been cited as a reliable source.
Let us be unequivocal. No canonical criminal trial ever took place. Despite repeated requests, my client was never granted the opportunity to defend himself in a formal judicial process. He has never been presented with the specific delicts he is accused of, he has been denied access to the docuмentation and votum of the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Martinique. And, he had no knowledge of his accusers' identities until he received the Decree of Dismissal.
Instead, my client received a decree of dismissal from the clerical state, not as the result of a trial, but following a so-called "review" conducted by a cleric who is a personal friend of Archbishop Macaire. This same priest harboured a well-known animus toward my client, a fact he did not dispute when confronted with the same in writing and, thereafter, he refused to recuse himself from the canonical deliberations.
This process, lacking transparency, due process, and impartiality, cannot be described as a canonical criminal trial. What occurred in Martinique is contrary to every known principle of natural justice and canonical equity. The purported "facts" as recounted by Mr. Weaver.
8. On-going Recourse Before the Holy See
The matter is currently subject to on-going recourse before the Holy See because my client was NOT in Martinique when the allegations made against him were FABRICATED by Archbishop Macaire. Moreover, this can be established by flight records, passport stamps, and the glaring omissions in the Decree. In effect, my client is dealing with the consequences of an agenda-driven kangaroo court. To suggest otherwise is a grave misrepresentation that unjustly damages my client's reputation and undermines the integrity of canonical justice.
9. Defamatory Conduct by Mr. Brendan Kavanagh
Contrary to the assertions made by Mr. Brendan Kavanagh on his YouTube channel, he has repeatedly referred to my client using scandalous, indecent, and grossly offensive epithets, including "pedo", "pederast", and other inflammatory search terms. These statements were delivered with evident relish and hostility, and are entirely devoid of factual foundation or justification.
The sustained nature of this defamatory commentary, coupled with its public visibility and monetisation, gave rise to a credible apprehension of harm. Given the risk that vigilantes, incited by such rhetoric, might take the law into their own hands and inflict serious harm upon Mr. Moran, a formal complaint was submitted to Bedfordshire Police regarding Mr. Kavanagh's conduct. Thus, the arrest of Mr. Kavanagh was a legitimate, proportional, and operational decision by Bedfordshire Police.
10. Personal Safety
Mr. Moran has been compelled to leave the United Kingdom for extended periods solely for his personal safety. It is within this context, marked by legitimate concern for his physical well-being, that the police became involved, ultimately leading to the arrest of Mr. Kavanagh. Contrary to certain misleading narratives, Mr. Kavanagh's arrest was not precipitated by the mere sending of "angry emails", but rather by his his reckless endangerment of Mr. Moran's safety.
11. Reckless Disclosure of Location by Mr. Weaver
It is possible that Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver is unaware that my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, has been required to leave the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom on several occasions during the current calendar year due to credible threats to his personal safety. Regardless of Mr. Weaver's level of awareness, the decision to publicly disclose my client's present location is deeply irresponsible. In the context of ongoing defamatory commentary and heightened public hostility, such disclosure risks inciting vigilante behaviour and places my client in serious physical danger. Any safeguarding framework, whether ecclesiastical, civil, or journalistic, must prioritise the protection of individuals from targeted exposure. Mr. Weaver's publication of sensitive locational information, without any demonstrable justification rooted in public interest, raises significant ethical concerns and may carry legal consequences should harm result from this disclosure.
Whilst I do not possess direct evidentiary proof of the matter, I have been reliably informed that Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver was permanently banned from the on-line forum and blog "cathinfo.com," where he reportedly operated under the pseudonym "Dunstan." The basis for this ban, as conveyed to me, was his repeated posting of extreme and inflammatory commentary concerning my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. If this account is accurate-and it appears to be corroborated by multiple independent sources familiar with the forum's moderation history-it raises serious and legitimate concerns regarding Mr. Weaver's impartiality and objectivity in reporting on matters involving my client.
The use of pseudonymous online platforms to disseminate prejudicial content, particularly when such content targets an individual involved in on-going legal and ecclesiastical proceedings, undermines the credibility of any subsequent journalistic output by the same author. In academic and professional contexts, impartiality is not merely a virtue-it is a prerequisite for ethical engagement. Accordingly, any editorial reliance upon Mr. Weaver's reporting should be approached with caution, and his prior conduct must be considered when assessing the integrity and reliability of his published assertions.
13. Questioning Mr. Weaver's Objectivity
It is both reasonable and necessary to question whether Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver can be regarded as an objective commentator in this matter, or whether he has, perhaps unwittingly, become a conduit for Mr. Brendan Kavanagh's revenge-driven campaign against my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. While Mr. Weaver may consider himself well- intentioned, the tenor and content of his reporting suggest a predisposition that aligns more closely with advocacy than impartial journalism. His apparent reliance on unverified claims, coupled with a failure to engage with exculpatory evidence or alternative perspectives, undermines the credibility of his narrative and calls into question the integrity of his editorial judgment.
14. False Claims Regarding Bishop Paul Morgan
It is categorically untrue that Bishop Paul Morgan visited any London-based police station in connection with the arrest of Mr. Brendan Kavanagh. This claim, made by Mr. Kavanagh during his interview with Ian Collins, is demonstrably false and can be disproven by reference to the official records of the Metropolitan Police. No such visit occurred, and any suggestion to the contrary constitutes a fabrication. Importantly, this is not a matter of conjecture but one of verifiable fact, and any responsible journalistic outlet would be expected to seek corroboration before repeating such a claim.
15. Mr. Moran's Co-operation with Authorities
My client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, has proactively self-reported the allegations made against him to a UK police force. He has co-operated fully with law enforcement and safeguarding authorities, demonstrating a consistent commitment to transparency and accountability. In addition to his engagement with UK authorities, Mr. Moran is in possession of multiple police background backgroun checks, including one issued by the Republic of Ireland-a jurisdiction renowned for its stringent vetting protocols, particularly in matters involving child protection and clerical oversight. These checks confirm unequivocally that Mr. Moran has no criminal record and no history of misconduct.
Moreover, the fact that Mr. Weaver has identified where my client is currently residing in light of the fact he has had to leave the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom on more than one occasion during the course of this year is reckless and is encouraging of vigilantes that puts my client's physical safety in grave danger.
16. Misidentification and Fabricated Interview Claim
Whilst there are numerous additional inaccuracies within Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver's article many of which verge on the implausible and would render this correspondence encyclopaedic in length were each to be addressed; I am nonetheless duty-bound to highlight the most egregious instances of misrepresentation and demonstrable deceit.
To that end, I can confirm unequivocally that Mr. Weaver did not speak with my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. Had Mr. Weaver exercised even a modicuм of journalistic diligence, he would have discerned that the individual with whom he conversed was of Caribbean extraction-a fact that is immediately apparent upon listening to the recording of the conversation. The assertion that Mr. Moran spoke "with a Welsh accent and traces of Irish inflection [sic]" is not only inaccurate but demonstrably false. It is either the product of negligent reporting or a deliberate misrepresentation. Moreover, the telephone conversation in question was recorded and can be made available upon request, thereby providing objective evidence that Mr. Weaver's claim is wholly unfounded.
17. Impersonation and Criminal Misrepresentation
During the course of the aforementioned telephone conversation, Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver unequivocally claimed, on three separate occasions, to be a priest affiliated with the Diocese of Perpignan. These assertions are preserved in recorded telephone conversations, thereby rendering any subsequent denial untenable. More gravely, and in a manner that may constitute criminal impersonation under the laws of England and Wales, Mr. Weaver further represented himself as Mr. Philippe Sands, the distinguished Jєωιѕн barrister and internationally recognised academic. This act of misrepresentation srepre is not only ethically indefensible but also potentially unlawful, raising serious concerns regarding Mr. Weaver's conduct and intent.
Accordingly, this matter will be referred to the appropriate police authorities for investigation. These claims are not speculative; they are substantiated by audio recordings that remain available for evidentiary review. It is for these reasons that I have specifically instructed my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, to raise this issue of impersonation and misrepresentation during his scheduled meeting with constables from Norfolk Police this afternoon, October 18, 2025.
18. Conclusion: Editorial Responsibility and Recommendation
In light of the foregoing, it is both reasonable and necessary to conclude that Mr. Gareth Thomas Weaver is not a reliable or impartial commentator on matters concerning Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. His conduct, as outlined in the rebuttal, reflects a pattern of misrepresentation, ethical lapses, and potentially unlawful behaviour-including impersonation and the reckless endangerment of a vulnerable individual.
Mr. Weaver's article, far from constituting responsible journalism, appears to be the product of a misguided campaign that aligns more closely with with personal vendetta than with objective reporting. The cuмulative weight of the rebuttal's evidence-ranging from sworn affidavits and police records to recorded conversations-renders the article not only factually unsound but ethically indefensible.
Accordingly, it is submitted that Mr. Weaver's article should not be published under any circuмstances. To do so would be to lend institutional credibility to a narrative that is demonstrably false, dangerously inflammatory, and injurious to the reputation and safety of an innocent man.
If, this e-mail begets any further queries do not hesitate to be in contact.
Yours faithfully,
Alan R. Kershaw.
-
Why does the Novus Ordoite, Gareth Thomas Weaver, state as a fact that Fr. Moran is a "convicted pedophile"? Does he have proof of this? Weaver, by his own admission, inserted himself into this affair just 16 days ago. Does he have new evidence that no one else has seen yet?
And he now claims he has "struggled to get this into the light in the Church, but [has] been blocked by lies, subterfuge and direct attack." :laugh1:
If what was said in the OnePeterFive article was true, why would they let themselves get bullied by a lawyer using "lies, subterfuge, and direct attack"? Would the article not stand up under scrutiny?
Maybe they are a feeling a little less certain of their accusations against Moran now...given that there may be legal consequences if what they were so eager to believe as true and publish turns out to be..false
-
It seems there’s a priest supporting Fr Ciaran Moran. Fr Linus Clovis. This priest is not connected to SSPX or SSPX resistance.
https://equusasinus.net/
Thank you for the update. Unfortunately it raises more questions than answers. There seems to be a West Indies connection between Moran and Clovis - see link below. I also noticed that that this Alan R. Kershaw calls him MR. Ciaran Kerry Moran. I looked up who this Kershaw is - he appears to be a Canon Lawyer from Rome. This is rather odd. Why would a Canon lawyer from Rome be supporting a man who has been operating as a priest, even though he had been officially laicised by the Church that Kershaw works for? Why is the mainstream Church now seemingly defending Mr. Moran and not Bishop Morgan? Why is there a total absence of concern that a man who had, ecclesiastically, been found guilty of child abuse - and not yet been cleared of those charges - has meanwhile been mingling with children dressed as a priest? Is it possible that Bishop Morgan and Bishop Ballini now realized that they too have been deceived?
Writes this Kershaw: "...my client received a decree of dismissal from the clerical state...
The matter is currently subject to on-going recourse before the Holy See because my client was NOT in Martinique when the allegations made against him were FABRICATED by Archbishop Macaire. Moreover, this can be established by flight records, passport stamps, and the glaring omissions in the Decree. In effect, my client is dealing with the consequences of an agenda-driven kangaroo court. To suggest otherwise is a grave misrepresentation that unjustly damages my client's reputation and undermines the integrity of canonical justice."
This is an absolute joke. Moran received a decree of dismissal from the clerical state for child abuse. He then, a mere three months later, gets himself ordained by Archbishop Vigano (and Bishop Williamson?) - deceiving both - and consequently undermining the very canonical justice that Kershaw claims Weaver is doing - in order to dress up as a priest and freely mingle with children. Sorry, if anyone damaged Mr. Moran's reputation it was Moran himself. He caused this drama. He by-passed the "integrity of the canonical justice". He called himself a Resistance priest. And now he uses the names of Novus Order priests to defend his corner.
Will the real Kerry Moran stand up.
https://fli.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Speaker-Bio-Father-Linus-Clovis.pdf
-
Why would a Canon lawyer from Rome be supporting a man who has been operating as a priest, even though he had been officially laicised by the Church that Kershaw works for?
Oh man, I don't know..perhaps the Canon lawyer is doing his job? Is the Martinique Archdiocese "the Church that Kershaw works for", now? Or is he a Canon lawyer who has, in his independent capacity, agreed to represent Moran?
Since we are are just throwing guesses out here, maybe Kershaw is representing Moran because he believes Moran has been falsely accused and unfairly maligned :popcorn:
Why is the mainstream Church now seemingly defending Mr. Moran and not Bishop Morgan?
And Mr. Kershaw is the "mainstream Church" now :jester:
So much cope going on
-
Mr. Kershaw represented "Fr" Frank Phillips several years ago, who was removed as pastor at his parish after being accused of improper conduct with men. An independent review board later found that "Fr. Phillips [had] not violated any secular criminal, civil or canon law."
https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/220113
https://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/06/exclusive-text-of-fr-phillips-canon-law.html?m=1
LAW OFFICES
Alan R. Kershaw, Ph.B., J.U.D., J.D.
Advocate of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota Practicing in the Supreme Court of Cassation
Rome, 29th April 2018
H.E . Blase J. Card. Cupich Archbishop of Chicago 835 North Rush Street Chicago, IL 60611-2030 U.S.A.
Re: Rev. C. Frank Phillips, C.R.
Your Eminence,
Greetings in the Risen Christ!
I have been retained by Fr. C. Frank Phillips, C.R., to defend him in the canonical forum. Attached herewith is a copy of the mandate of appointment. Should you require an original of the mandate, kindly let me know and I will have one delivered to your offices.
Fr. Phillips has instructed me to contact you with regard to his current status in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and as the Founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.
Before proceeding, indubitably it is salutary to recall certain recent, salient, and undisputable events.
February 26, 2018 Fr. C. Frank Phillips was called by Fr. Dennis Lyle and Fr. Jeremy Thomas of the Priest Vicar Board, informing him that accusations of improper conduct had been made against him.
The afternoon of March 2nd Fr. Phillips, accompanied by his civil lawyer, met at the Chancery with Fr. Dennis Lyle, Fr. Jeremy Thomas, and Sr. Joan McGlinchey. Also present was Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., in his capacity as Provincial General of the Congregation of the Resurrection. Fr. Phillips did not respond to the allegations, nor, as you know, was he legally obliged to.
Ten days later, on March 12th You announced your decision “to remove the faculties of Reverend C. Frank Phillips, C.R., which means he can no longer remain as the pastor of St. John Cantius and the superior of the Canons Regular”.
On March 16th you wrote to the “Parishioners, Staff and Friends of Saint John Cantius Parish”, informing them: “that I have had to withdraw Reverend C. Frank Phillips’ faculties to minister in the Archdiocese of Chicago”, and that you “took this step after learning of credible allegations of improper conduct involving adult men”.
The news of Fr. Phillips’ removal was soon in the local, State, national and international media: “In a statement to parishioners, Cardinal Blase Cupich explained that he had made the decision to « withdraw » Phillips after learning « of credible allegations of improper conduct involving adult men ». Anne Maselli, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in an email that the allegations do not involve minors.” (Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2018; amongst others see also: Newsweek, March 19, 2018; Crux, March 20, 2018).
Within the time limits foreseen by canon law, on March 26th Fr. Phillips formally petitioned you to “either revoke or emend your decree” (can. 1734), and to “engage in a process of mediation which can resolve this issue without further canonical action” (can. 1733, §1).
The Saturday following Easter you met with the members of the Canons Regular, and during the course of the meeting, with reference to Fr. Phillips, you reportedly expressed to those present that the investigation of the diocese indicates that he is guilty. It is also my understanding, that you strongly recommended to the members of the Canons Regular to not give witness testimony before the Review Board.
On the 10th and 12th days of April the “Review Board”, or investigative panel constituted by the Superior of the Congregation of the Resurrection, Rev. Fr. Gene Szarek, interviewed Fr. Phillips’ detractors, and other persons, including Fr. Phillips, who was accompanied by his civil lawyer. Not surprisingly, Fr. Phillips denied the allegations, just as all innocent people refuse to confess to illicit actions they did not commit. To date, the Panel’s final report has not been presented, but it is forthcoming.
* * * * *
As Your Eminence knows, canon 1717 CJC recites: “§1. Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circuмstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous. §2. Care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered from this investigation.”
In your letter/decree of March 12, 2018 to Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., you generically signify: “Considering the complaints of inappropriate conduct recently brought against the Reverend C. Frank Phillips, CR […] I hereby withdraw all of his faculties to engage in any ecclesiastical ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and remove him of pastor of St. John Cantius Church”; therefore: “I will appoint a parish administrator until the matter currently under investigation is resolved”, and, “I will appoint someone to serve as superior of the Canons Regular on an interim basis”.
Furthermore, you express the presumption “that an investigation will be undertaken by your office into the allegations made against Fr. Phillips and the exact nature of his conduct. I ask that you keep me apprised of your progress and the ultimate outcome of your inquiries”, and close with your “prayer for a swift resolution to this matter”.
Also worthy of note is your appointment of Reverend Scott Thelander, SJC, also done on March 12th, “as administrator of St. John Cantius Parish and Superior ad interim”, and you convey your assurances “to visit with the Canons Regular as soon as I can to ask your suggestions and recommendations for moving forward with a permanent arrangement for the position of Superior”.
* * * * *
Primo ictu oculi your decree, the singular administrative act dated March 12, 2018, is ipso jure null and void under canon law. Attentive study of the facts and related docuмents further confirms this conclusion.
Canon 1717 explicitly mandates: « §1. Quoties Ordinarius notitiam, saltem veri similem, habet de delicto, caute inquirat ».
Præprimis, in Fr. Phillips’ case there does not appear to be any canonical “delict” to speak of.
Second, although there was no apparent or discernable « notitia delicti » you reportedly asserted to the members of the Canons Regular on Saturday, April 7th that the investigation of the diocese indicates that “Fr. Phillips is guilty”. If this corresponds to the truth, then a precipitous judgment was expressed, or better reiterated by your good self, albeit in absence of a delict and without a preventive « inquisitio circa facta et circuмstantia et circa imputabilitatem ».
Canon 1717 also explicitly mandates: « §2. Cavendum est ne ex hac investigatione bonum cuiusquam nomen in discrimen vocetur ».
Prescinding momentarily from whether you ordered an « investigatio prævia » into the allegations of non-existent « delicta », on March 12th you asked Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., to “keep me apprised of your progress and the ultimate outcome of your inquiries”, on the presumption “that an investigation will be undertaken by your office into the allegations made against Fr. Phillips and the exact nature of his conduct”. Therefore, prior to the completion of any investigation, whether diocesan or by the religious order, you proceeded to inform the media of your decisions as set forth in your March 12th decree. This, Your Eminence, blatantly constitutes a violation of Fr. Phillips’ privacy and all rights relative to the preservation of his good name; a clear manifestation, in the minds of many Christifideles, of either an animus against Fr. Phillips, or a high level of suspicion and a low level of skepticism was present during the decision making phase, or, perhaps, a mixture of both; which reprovingly gives way to a reversed burden of proof, i.e. Fr. Phillips must prove his innocence rather than the reprobate accusers having to prove his culpability. To be clear, this is not simply an opinion, or a defense tactic of the undersigned patrocinium, but rather an easily verifiable current of valuation widely shared amongst the faithful, in particular by those who personally know Fr. Phillips, together with all those who are familiar with and participate in the good works of the Canons Regular SJC in Chicago, and elsewhere.
Canon 193, §1, CJC clearly establishes: “A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law”.
Thereby, with regard to Fr. Phillips’ case, one legitimately queries: Where is the “grave cause”? And, why was the requisite “manner of proceeding defined by law” set aside, and not followed as prescribed by the Codex?
Ad rem, given the facts outlined herein it is indubitable that your March 12th decree is irreparably vitiated sive in procedendo sive in decernendo.
Ultimately, in the exercise of his priestly ministry Fr. Phillips has acted in accordance with canon 529, §§ 1-2, CJC, and has conducted himself in an exemplary fashion, reflecting the Magisterium and exhortations of Pope Francis; that is to be selfless and reach out to help others, regardless of their status, to be compassionate and always act with brotherly love especially towards those who find themselves in difficulty on the path of life.
If Your Eminence, as Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Chicago, prior to giving the March 12th decree had conducted a preliminary investigation, prompting the restrictions, scilicet the canonical sanctions, imposed on Fr. Phillips, then it can only be valuated as superficial and incomplete. Hence, your decree is lacking factual foundation (Cfr. canons 48-51 CJC).
What is more, the verbiage of your decree and other public writings appear contradictory, and unfounded in canon law. Hence, this perceived lack of clarity and linearity – also in reference to the erroneous application of the dictates of the prescribed canon law process - gives way to, and even further provokes profound confusion amongst the faithful, causing unnecessary scandal and division.
* * * * *
In light of the arguments heretofore articulated sive in jure sive in facto, on behalf of Fr. Phillips and in defense of his person and interests, You are hereby respectfully petitioned to revoke your March 12th decree in its entirety and, to said effect, restore Fr. Phillips’ status quo ante as Pastor of St. John Cantius and Superior of the Canons Regular SJC.
As a final resolution of the entire, baseless matter, this could prove persuasive to avoid litigation that potentially would involve the Archdiocese in the secular courts.
Indubitably, Fr. Phillips has been egregiously defamed by his reprobate detractors, including those who have “jumped on the band wagon” ostensibly hoping to have found an opportunity for fraudulent monetary gain.
The damage to Fr. Phillips’ reputation has indeed been compounded by those same wide reaching media reports which have caused and continue to consternation and astonishment amongst the Christifideles. Hence, it is left to Rev. Fr. Phillips to discern if and what further action should be taken to restore his good name.
On this point, Fr. Phillips suggests and would appreciate drafting any eventual joint communication to the faithful in the Archdiocese, regarding the positive resolution of all contrasts and his status.
However, should Your Eminence not deem the above arguments to carry sufficient weight for the reasonable and justifiable revocation of your March 12th decree, then by these presents Fr. Phillips makes formal hierarchical administrative recourse against your decree of March 12, 2018.
In closing, I take the opportunity to quote the words of His Holiness, Pope Francis, expressed in his recent letter to the Chilean bishops, wherein he asked forgiveness, acknowledging “that I have made serious mistakes in the assessment and perception of the situation, especially because of the lack of truthful and balanced information”.
From a professional perspective, and with legitima suspicione, I ask myself whether Your Eminence too has been misled by a deplorable “lack of truthful and balanced information”. Should this prove to be the case, then to the mind of Fr. Phillips’ supporters the moment to rectify matters must be seized immediately to underscore the fact that “zero tolerance” is not merely a one-way policy.
With a prayer for a positive resolution of all issues, I look forward to your
reply.
In Domino addictissimus,
Alan R. Kershaw, R.R.Adv
-
Looks like Weaver became a registered CathInfo member on Oct. 7, 2025, Feast of the Holy Rosary;...for a positive image /intro?...dunno.
In this post he says: "...unlike some who are immediately suspicious that people..."
Well! He had many different IP addresses, as per Moderator, which is reasonable when you know this reporter very probably has access to news outlets worldwide. He must of logged on a network in one country, post on CathInfo, then 15 min. later he uses an IP from France etc.
Good detective work moderator!
CathInfo is on the world stage again, as the Rebuttal mentions the forum.
The moderator deleted Dunstan 's posts...sort of
There are some REPLYs that are still on CathInfo, with Quotes from his posts.
I am copying his ultimate ? post to me, as extra proof that Dunstαn (Weαver) was here, the more proof the better.
So we can assume that all this is not before the courts yet. Doesn't look good for the Bishop M. in Martinique, or for D r. K.
********************
SSPX Resistance News (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/) / Re: Man arrested for email (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg1001669/#msg1001669)
« on: October 08, 2025, 02:13:32 PM »
Quote from: Dunstan1088 on October 07, 2025, 01:36:45 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg1001455/#msg1001455)
Thank you, Twice dyed. It's good that you take the trouble to welcome a newcomer, unlike some who are immediately suspicious that people take the trouble to join the discussion! (But that's the usual rudeness of the internet. isn't it?)
P.S. Yes indeed Saint Dunstan pray for us. He is patron of the blind and was a great & wise counsellor to three Saxon kings. As Archbishop of Canterbury he was known for holiness and practising his trademark passion of working iron in a blacksmiths forge!
Hospitality is...
********************************
Queen of the Holy Rosary, pray for us+
-
Moran has stated he himself was a canon lawyer. Also this "lawyer" in the email sounds alot like Moran when he posted as "truthy"
If you believe Moran or anyone assisting him is pretending to be Kershaw, you should attempt to bring it to Kershaw's attention
-
If you believe Moran or anyone assisting him is pretending to be Kershaw, you should attempt to bring it to Kershaw's attention
A Canon lawyer knows that before a cleric - who has been dismissed from the clerical state - can operate as a cleric again, he must first submit to the due process involving a Vatican investigation. The fact the Moran has ignored this due process, deceived two eminent bishops into ordaining him, and has been secretly doing Mass circuits among children, tells us that Moran has absolutely no regard for the Canonical system. It also tells us that we are dealing with a highly skilled conman.
That said, your suggestion about contacting Kershaw is a good one.
-
Hi
-
Moran has stated he himself was a canon lawyer. Also this "lawyer" in the email sounds alot like Moran when he posted as "truthy"
Quote from: Fidelite 2025-10-23, 8:24:07 a.m.
Moran has stated he himself was a canon lawyer.
."
I love this post Thanks!
We find out that Weaver was CI member Dunstan, on Oct. 7, 2025 (Feast of the Holy Rosary!) kindda suspicious member - and now Truthy who joined July 1, 2025 Feast of the Precious Blood (positive initial image?)
We all have the option to remain anonymous I suppose. BUT the Rebuttal criticizes Weaver for "...operated under the pseudonym 'Dunstan', ...posting extreme and inflammatory commentary..."
This Rebuttal is a B*mbshill, tbe plot is sickenning...
Hope the truth will out. Yeah! "FR." MORAN didn't follow canon law. , all this is...looks bizarre.
-
A Canon lawyer knows that before a cleric - who has been dismissed from the clerical state - can operate as a cleric again, he must first submit to the due process involving a Vatican investigation. The fact the Moran has ignored this due process, deceived two eminent bishops into ordaining him, and has been secretly doing Mass circuits among children, tells us that Moran has absolutely no regard for the Canonical system. It also tells us that we are dealing with a highly skilled conman.
That said, your suggestion about contacting Kershaw is a good one.
What does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with what he, and apparently the Canon lawyer representing him, claims is a unjust dismissal from the clerical state? The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church :incense:
My guess is, at this time, Moran is more concerned with clearing his name than any reintegration into what you call the "mainstream Church"
-
A Canon lawyer knows that before a cleric - who has been dismissed from the clerical state - can operate as a cleric again, he must first submit to the due process involving a Vatican investigation. The fact the Moran has ignored this due process, deceived two eminent bishops into ordaining him, and has been secretly doing Mass circuits among children, tells us that Moran has absolutely no regard for the Canonical system. It also tells us that we are dealing with a highly skilled conman.
That said, your suggestion about contacting Kershaw is a good one.
Yes would be worth contacting him. I just looked him up. Kershaw is based in Rome.
This letterhead on this PDF - gives an address and phone number.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:d1a16e8d-ea9e-4cb4-b616-115332da0e25 (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Facrobat.adobe.com%2Fid%2Furn%3Aaaid%3Asc%3AUS%3Ad1a16e8d-ea9e-4cb4-b616-115332da0e25&data=05|02||6cc63be099fb49d9b68f08de1210dff0|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638968060859223687|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D|0|||&sdata=86gH2CVjjqyTKq3jx2PErrFZlLFibXpiLZ8tlulOCNk%3D&reserved=0)
This gives an email address of alkershaw@libero.it (alkershaw@libero.it):
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:4a73b501-83b5-4c0a-b0a5-ad646848a519
(https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Facrobat.adobe.com%2Fid%2Furn%3Aaaid%3Asc%3Aus%3A4a73b501-83b5-4c0a-b0a5-ad646848a519&data=05|02||6cc63be099fb49d9b68f08de1210dff0|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638968060859247546|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D|0|||&sdata=N7X1w2T%2Fo4m1x4wNdhUmi3zNCbiAUUeXXH43FDyyMEc%3D&reserved=0)
-
What does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with what he, and apparently the Canon lawyer representing him, claims is a unjust dismissal from the clerical state? The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church :incense:
My guess is, at this time, Moran is more concerned with clearing his name than any reintegration into what you call the "mainstream Church"
Under Canon LAW, a dismissed cleric is not allowed to act as a cleric. And he certainly is not allowed to get himself ordained. If the dismissal is unjust, then he will be re-instated. But he must first wait for the outcome of the investigation. That is the law of the Church.
You ask 'what does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with (it)?" It has everything to do with it. He is not allowed to. What if he not innocent? There have been other accusations other than the bishop of Martinique. Moreover, innocent men do not go where they are considered dangerous. Only predators force the issue.
That is why there is every reason to suspect that Moran is not concerned with clearing his name but protecting his access to children. If he was genuine, he would have immediately started the canonical process and subjected himself to its conditions. He would not have acted in secret - hiding his identity and pretending to be a priest in good standing - and he would not have been upset that a father of children strongly objected to his deceptive methods and current unlawful status. He would not have deceived Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Williamson.
-
Under Canon LAW, a dismissed cleric is not allowed to act as a cleric. And he certainly is not allowed to get himself ordained. If the dismissal is unjust, then he will be re-instated. But he must first wait for the outcome of the investigation. That is the law of the Church.
You ask 'what does Moran currently offering the sacraments have to do with (it)?" It has everything to do with it. He is not allowed to. What if he not innocent? There have been other accusations other than the bishop of Martinique. Moreover, innocent men do not go where they are considered dangerous. Only predators force the issue.
That is why there is every reason to suspect that Moran is not concerned with clearing his name but protecting his access to children. If he was genuine, he would have immediately started the canonical process and subjected himself to its conditions. He would not have acted in secret - hiding his identity and pretending to be a priest in good standing - and he would not have been upset that a father of children strongly objected to his deceptive methods and current unlawful status. He would not have deceived Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Williamson.
Must he ask permission of his local Novus Ordo bishop to be conditionally ordained by a Resistance bishop? How do you think that would go? :popcorn:
Like I said, at this point he is probably more concerned with clearing his name than being reinstated to any position in the Vatican II sect
How do we know the faithful that this actually concerns have not been made aware of this matter? Do you go to a Resistance mass? Has anyone here been to one of Moran's masses? I've heard some Resistance mass centers in the UK/Ireland are pretty hush hush, close knit, even before the Moran affair. Probably for good reason. They'll keep receiving the sacraments, while you, the Hewkonians, Pfiefferites, Indulters, and Novus Ordoites who have brigaded this forum can keep yapping :fryingpan:
-
Must he ask permission of his local Novus Ordo bishop to be conditionally ordained by a Resistance bishop? How do you think that would go? :popcorn:
Like I said, at this point he is probably more concerned with clearing his name than being reinstated to any position in the Vatican II sect
How do we know the faithful that this actually concerns have not been made aware of this matter? Do you go to a Resistance mass? Has anyone here been to one of Moran's masses? I've heard some Resistance mass centers in the UK/Ireland are pretty hush hush, close knit, even before the Moran affair. Probably for good reason. They'll keep receiving the sacraments, while you, the Hewkonians, Pfiefferites, Indulters, and Novus Ordoites who have brigaded this forum can keep yapping :fryingpan:
Ok, let us sum up exactly what you believe:
* You have NO regard for Canon Law. None.
* You applaud laicized clerics - who have been found guilty of child abuse - onto the Mass circuits.
* You applaud laicized secret clerics - who have been found gulity of child abuse - onto the Mass circuits without giving their name or background details.
* You fully support laicized clerics being ordained or conditionally ordained if they want to be ordained; it's their democratic right, right?
* It matters not if the cleric is actually a pedo as long as he can administer the traditional sacraments (ha ha, we have one over you non-resistance heads!).
Conclusion: You are the classic example of an enabler.
-
*Copious amounts of yapping*
Ok, let us sum up exactly what you do not believe:
The Catholic Faith
-
Ok, let us sum up exactly what you believe:
* You have NO regard for Canon Law. None.…
You are a damned hypocrite, liar, subversive, and illogical.
You really are a ninny. You see ONE word and pounce without rhyme or reason. Christ was Hebrew. Old Testament was Hebrew. The Joos of today have no connection - neither religiously nor ethnically - to the Hebrews pre-Christ.…
Really??? I found fault with only "ONE" word? I clearly docuмented EIGHT fundamental flaws in your claims.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #1
Part Two:
"Yes, the Ordinary Magisterium is part of the deposit of faith, as it includes teachings that the Church proposes for belief based on Scripture and Tradition." AI answer.
Anything that contradicts Extraordinary Magisterium cannot be "Ordinary Magisterium." The simple fact that there are conflicting commentaries from non-Magisterial sources means BOD cannot be "what has always, everywhere, and unanimously taught," hence BOD cannot be "Ordinary Magisterium."
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #2
The infallibility of both Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium was solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council (1870) when it stated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in Solemn judgement OR in its Ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Contradiction of Extraordinary Magisterium is neither "tradition" nor Extraordinary Magisterium.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #3
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.
Contradiction of Extraordinary Magisterium is neither "in union with the Holy See," "teaching authority of the Church," "tradition" nor Extraordinary Magisterium.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #4
In other words, both forms of the Magisterium of the Church (Solemn or Ordinary) are to be treated as infallible and must be believed, according to this General Council. So if a teaching in the Church is universal, and allowed to propagate without condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium, it is considered infallible by the First Vatican Council.
The Extraordinary Magisterium taught the Truth that "water and the spirit are necessary for Salvation. It is not necessary for the Church to condemn the entire universe of errors.
"In other words"? Those "other" words are your words: illogical, self-serving, and without any authority.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #5
The Solemn Magisterium:
The Council of Trent: Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
In English and Latin, "or" and "aut" may be used inclusively as "or without the desire of them" must be used in this instance, since otherwise it would contradict other Extraordinary Magisterium. Extraordinary magisterium can refine earlier teaching, but it cannot "refine" a dogma into its exact opposite. It is impossible for The Council to turn a dogma that "water and the spirit" are necessary for Salvation into "Well… you don't really need water anymore."
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #6
The Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: …
In this thread the differences between justification and salvation have been explained to you repeatedly. Instead of just repeating your error, you should re-read and submit to the difference.
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW #7
In Hebrew thought, …
"In Hebrew thought…". So much for Catholic dogma, eh?
After you were called on this, you first lied that there was “no rhyme or reason” to challenge you about invoking “Hebrew thought” in a discussion about Catholic dogma— only later to claim the opposite.
Belatedly you claimed there actually was a reason to discuss “Hebrew thought”:
Boru, a verbatim quote:
Quote“This use of the word Hebrew was used in order to show that the word 'righteousness' has always been, even in the OLD TESTAMENT, to mean 'holiness',”
That is another lie.*
Not only is there no Catholic use of “Hebrew” to convey “righteousness,”* the Jews use the Hebrew word for “righteous”
( צַדִיק transliterated variously as ’zaddik’ or 'tsedeq') as a name for their revered тαℓмυdic rabbis—as in the Koliner rabbi’s claim [referenced in my previous posts] that “A Zaddik decrees and God obeys.”
• See the end of this post regarding my Grok inquiry on that point.
I am sure that this irony is lost on you.
In dissembling to vindicate your invocation of “Hebrew thought,” you have actually dug yourself deeper into the pit of hell.
You sought solace in “Hebrew thought” which actually claims the Zaddik, the rabbis, have authority over God Himself and who have the authority to alter Scripture.**
You reject the Word of God (John 3:5) and you reject the Extraordinary Magisterium of His Church. You emulate the damned rabbis in such usurpation and rejection and you invoke “Hebrew thought” as part of your ineffectual defense. Oh, the irony!
No amount of verbosity or word salad slithering allows you to escape your mirroring “Hebrew thought” in rejecting the Truth and substituting instead a bunch of man-made bullshit. You emulate the worst of "Hebrew thought."
You lie on the spot to make up any bullshit that is convenient at the moment to promote your errors.
**
QuoteThe Koliner rebbe [17th century rabbi of Prague] stated, “Our Zaddikim’s (famous Orthodox rabbis) words are more important than the Torah of Moses As our Sages teach: A Zaddik decrees, and God obeys.”
“God smiled and said: ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!’ God’s sons ‘defeated him’ with their arguments. Rabbi Yehoshua was correct in his contention that a view confirmed by majority vote must be accepted, even where God Himself holds the opposite view.”
Babylonian тαℓмυd, Tractate Bava Metzia 59b, Steinsaltz Edition [NY: Random House 1990], Vol. III p.237
“... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1., Feb., 1970, pp.3-4
* Now for Boru's lie that the word "Hebrew" is "always" understood as "righteousness," I asked Grok:
Is there any sense in which Catholic theology considers the word "Hebrew" as a synonym, metaphor, or simile for the word "righteousness"?
Grok answers:
No, there is no evidence in Catholic theology that the word "Hebrew" is considered a synonym, metaphor, or simile for "righteousness."
The term "Hebrew" (from the Hebrew "Ivri") is typically interpreted in Catholic sources, such as the writings of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers, as an ethnic designation derived from Abraham's ancestor Eber (Genesis 10:21, 11:14-17) or as meaning "one who crosses over" or "passer-by" (from the root 'abar, referring to Abraham's migration across the Euphrates River from Ur to Canaan). This "crossing over" is sometimes symbolically linked to Abraham's faith journey away from idolatry toward God, as seen in patristic commentaries on Genesis 14:13. Abraham himself is a model of righteousness by faith in Catholic teaching (e.g., Romans 4, cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 144-147), but the word "Hebrew" itself is not used as a direct stand-in for "righteousness."
The Hebrew word for "righteousness" is instead "tsedeq" or "tzedakah," which denotes justice, moral uprightness, or covenant fidelity, and is unrelated etymologically or theologically to "Hebrew" in Catholic tradition. Any symbolic connection between Abraham's "Hebrew" identity and righteousness stems from Jєωιѕн midrashic interpretations (e.g., Abraham standing alone against the world for God), which Catholic theology may acknowledge in broader biblical exegesis but does not adopt as a direct equivalence for the term.
My follow-up question to Grok:
Is צַדִיק , transliterated variously as ’zaddik’ or 'tsedeq', also a term of reverence used by тαℓмυdic Jews to refer to "sages" and respected rabbis?
Grok answers:
Yes, the Hebrew term **צַדִּיק** (transliterated as *tzaddik* or *tsaddik*) is used in Jєωιѕн tradition, including тαℓмυdic literature, as a term of reverence to refer to exceptionally righteous individuals, sages, or respected rabbis. The word derives from the root **צ-ד-ק** (*ts-d-q*), meaning "righteousness" or "justice," and denotes someone who embodies moral and spiritual uprightness.
In тαℓмυdic and later Jєωιѕн tradition, a *tzaddik* is not merely a "righteous person" in a general sense but often carries a specific connotation of holiness, wisdom, and closeness to God. The term is applied to figures such as revered rabbis, sages, or spiritual leaders who exemplify piety and adherence to Torah. For example:
- In the тαℓмυd, figures like Rabbi Akiva or Hillel are implicitly regarded as *tzaddikim* due to their exemplary lives and teachings, though the term is not always explicitly applied to every sage.
- In later Jєωιѕн mysticism, particularly in Hasidism, the *tzaddik* became a central figure, often referring to a rebbe (spiritual leader) believed to have a unique connection to God, capable of interceding for their followers. The Hasidic concept of the *tzaddik* builds on earlier тαℓмυdic reverence but elevates it with mystical significance.
The related term **צְדָקָה** (*tzedakah*), also from the same root, refers to acts of charity or righteousness but is distinct from *tzaddik*, which describes a person. In Catholic theology, as noted previously, *tzaddik* or *tsedeq* is understood as "righteousness" in biblical contexts (e.g., in the Hebrew Scriptures), but the specific Jєωιѕн usage as a title for revered sages or rabbis is not paralleled in Catholic tradition, which has its own categories like "saint" or "doctor of the Church" for venerated figures.
and illogic used to deceive and subvert:
…a fraction of Boru's pervasive illogic and self-contradictions.
• While claiming to assent to God's Word at John 3:5 that "water and the spirit" are necessary for Salvation, Boru piles post upon post on page after page to insist that water is not necessary. What rational person embraces God's Word by contradicting His Word??? Boru's self-deception is astounding.
It is тαℓмυdic pilpul, "Hebrew thought." More Boru hypocrisy
• While "self-identifying" as a traditional Catholic and insisting that others adhere to Catholic authoity, Boru completely inverts the Magisterium's traditional hierarchy of doctrinal authority.
• Using pull quotes from non-Magisterial docuмents to nullify both the Word of God and the Councils of Florence and Trent is quintessentially Modernist and Motarian, not "traditional" at all.
• Boru refuses to accept the grammar of the English and Latin languages. "Or" may be used "inclusively" in both languages.
• Boru corrupts logic.
(1) "A + B are necessary" ["Water and the Spirit are necessary for Baptism"]
but
(2) "B is necessary" [any number of pull quotes explaining the necessity of the Spirit]
therefore
(3) "A is no longer necessary."???!!! [Water Baptism is unnecessary] ???!!! Astonishing illogic.
• Another example of Boru's illogic. Even in Boru's own example of the conversion of Cornelius's household is tortured by illogic and dyslexia. Boru correctly extolls the evidence of God's Spirit before Baptism, but ignores the simple fact that St. Peter, the Pope, plainly indicates that no man can "forbid water" and "commanded them to be baptized," a water Baptism. Acts 10:46-47:
"46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."
Even despite the acknowledged outpouring of Graces, Peter did not "forbid water" and still "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." It is beyond any sound logic that Boru offers this passage as denying the need for water Baptism. Peter ordered Water Baptism!
• Boru indulges sentimentality to reject God's Word and Extraordinary Magisterium. In doing that, Boru implicitly believes that God's Providence cannot provide the circuмstance necessary (form matter minister intent) to save those "predestinated" for Salvation (Ephesians 1). As I have said many times, Boru's methodology epitomizes тαℓмυdic methodology—to wit, men know better than God what God intends and provides, so men will fix God's stupidity and "defeat" Him (Babylonian тαℓмυd Bava Metzia 59a-b).
• Boru gives lip service to honor God, then in the same breath denies God's Word, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Providence, Mercy, and Justice.
To date, I have ascribed all these corruptions and illogic to prideful ill-will, however I concede the possibility that a fraction of the described illogic is due to dyslexia and irrationality. I still maintain that ill-will is manifest. No person of good will refuses to respond to criticism. Simply repeating one's errors and illogic is non-responsive. Yes, ill will is still manifest.
-
Transparency of what? Verify what facts? If the man is not guilty..."
The fact that Moran was saying Mass in the UK/Ireland after the Dr. K nonsense started, and the fact that Bp. Morgan called the police on Dr. K ..."
If this Rebuttal is genuine it does state [ in #14] that Bishop Paul Morgan didn't accompany Fr. Moran to the police station: this was the point of asking you to prove: I was very hesitant to accept as a FACT; at least now we have a reference to this particular incident. Many details that remain are still contradicting each other. For example, did +Morgan even call the police?? He had blocked Dr k's emails, so...
I think the basic problem with this event is that some of the actors are not reliable, as we discover every other week concerning "Fr." Moran, agree?
Plus this is again verifiable in the following statement [#15]
DrK didn't even know which police dept. had been contacted. (."..in London I think...", from the OP Video). He can be excused for acting such while he was very upset.
*******************
From: Rebuttal to Revision Docuмent - Safeguarding Allegations Against Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran To: Editors, Where Peter Is
by Kershaw
...
14. False Claims Regarding Bishop Paul Morgan
"It is categorically untrue that Bishop Paul Morgan visited any London-based police station in connection with the arrest of Mr. Brendan Kavanagh. This claim, made by Mr. Kavanagh during his interview with Ian Collins, is demonstrably false and can be disproven by reference to the official records of the Metropolitan Police. No such visit occurred, and any suggestion to the contrary constitutes a fabrication...."
15. Mr. Moran's Co-operation with Authorities
My client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran, has proactively self-reported the allegations made against him to a UK police force. He has co-operated fully with law enforcement and safeguarding authorities, demonstrating a consistent commitment to transparency and accountability..."
*************
So perhaps we could be forgiving towards +Morgan on some of these rumors, errors and presumptions, no?
My initial gut feeling was how could a bishop show up at a police station? for some emails?
That said, lets wait and see what else transpires...there are surely some mysteries to be unraveled.
I appreciate your investigations.
-
....................
So perhaps we could be forgiving towards +Morgan on some of these rumors, errors and presumptions, no?
My initial gut feeling was how could a bishop show up at a police station? for some emails?
That said, lets wait and see what else transpires...there are surely some mysteries to be unraveled.
I appreciate your investigations.
I really hope and pray Bp Morgan is less culpable in this affair than has transpired. The biggest problem has been his lack of leadership. The situation should have been clarified immediately; both publicly and also to Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh who deserved an explanation given they were recommended a "priest" who operated in secrecy and had a past. Archbishop Vigano states that himself and His Lordship Bishop Williamson were deceived by Mr. Moran. There is then every possibility that Bps Morgan and Ballini also realize they have been deceived and find themselves in a situation where they do not know what to do. Anyway, the truth will out eventually. It's only a matter of time before confirmations start coming in.
-
I really hope and pray Bp Morgan is less culpable in this affair than has transpired. There is then every possibility that Bps Morgan and Ballini also realize they have been deceived and find themselves in a situation where they do not know what to do. Anyway, the truth will out eventually. It's only a matter of time before confirmations start coming in.
That's what I hope: clarity / charity!
DrK is confusing the events, as in what happened first, then this etc. In his videos he repeats the " We forgot all about it.." I have not yet seen the date when Fr Moran was saying mass, only an indirect clue from the Sept 8., 2024 Video. The curious thing is he never mentions a precise date. Odd.
-
That's what I hope: clarity / charity!
DrK is confusing the events, as in what happened first, then this etc. In his videos he repeats the " We forgot all about it.." I have not yet seen the date when Fr Moran was saying mass, only an indirect clue from the Sept 8., 2024 Video. The curious thing is he never mentions a precise date. Odd.
Have you, Boru, Justinian, Gareth Weaver et al contacted ++Vigano, +Morgan, or +Ballini directly yourselves asking these questions? I'm confused as to why you would post here rather than reach out to the parties themselves. Why post here asking CathInfo to contact the bishops rather than do it yourselves? Have you contacted Fr Moran?
-
They just want to whine and complain. No action.
-
Have you, Boru, Justinian, Gareth Weaver et al contacted ++Vigano, +Morgan, or +Ballini directly yourselves asking these questions? I'm confused as to why you would post here rather than reach out to the parties themselves. Why post here asking CathInfo to contact the bishops rather than do it yourselves? Have you contacted Fr Moran?
Those are good questions. Morgan is completely silent and refuses to comment as Mr Weaver proved. Ballini also. Vigano has provided his response and warnings by email but some on this forum choose not to believe it is genuinely from him.
I understand investigations are underway and the full truth will be revealed in due course, and doubtless be posted on this forum. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
-
I really hope and pray Bp Morgan is less culpable in this affair than has transpired. The biggest problem has been his lack of leadership. The situation should have been clarified immediately; both publicly and also to Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh who deserved an explanation given they were recommended a "priest" who operated in secrecy and had a past. Archbishop Vigano states that himself and His Lordship Bishop Williamson were deceived by Mr. Moran. There is then every possibility that Bps Morgan and Ballini also realize they have been deceived and find themselves in a situation where they do not know what to do. Anyway, the truth will out eventually. It's only a matter of time before confirmations start coming in.
Yes I hope the same about Bp Morgan. I didn’t think Mr Weaver acted very ethically coming on this forum however. Is he actually looking to uncover the truth about Moran or is he just trying to find a reason to bash traditional Catholics!?
-
Those are good questions. Morgan is completely silent and refuses to comment as Mr Weaver proved. Ballini also. Vigano has provided his response and warnings by email but some on this forum choose not to believe it is genuinely from him.
I understand investigations are underway and the full truth will be revealed in due course, and doubtless be posted on this forum. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
So you've contacted +Morgan and +Ballini and received no response?
-
Those are good questions. Morgan is completely silent and refuses to comment as Mr Weaver proved.
>Rando Novus Ordoite Weaver who came out of nowhere a couple weeks ago claims that he spoke with Fr. Abraham on the phone and "overheard" +Morgan "snap, 'I've told you I am not speaking to anyone!'"
This has been going on for how long, over a year..since Kavanagh first posted about Moran? I'm supposed to believe Fr. Abraham wouldn't, at this point, know that +Morgan does not want to speak to some rando inquiring about Moran? That Fr. Abraham would first lie about Morgan not being there, and then immediately admit to the lie after Weaver asks him some "difficult questions", and try to hand the phone off to +Morgan, rather than just hang up?
What Weaver posted doesn't "prove" anything. Your dishonesty is glaring and this just "proves" that you, for whatever reason, want what Weaver claimed happened to be true
-
It’s peculiar, isn’t it? The loudest demands for a response from +Morgan and +Ballini come from those who’ve never bothered to reach out themselves. Research, it seems, requires more effort than outrage.
-
A principal verdict has to come from Rome at this point , and then other relevant issues will be hammered out. I am referring to the case re: the Appeal about bishop of Martinique defrocking our "Deacon". The REBUTTAL highlights this course of action, as :
"...
8. On-going Recourse Before the Holy See
The matter is currently subject to on-going recourse before the Holy See because my client was NOT in Martinique when the allegations made against him were FABRICATED by Archbishop Macaire..."
******
Plus , DrK is launching a civil court case against the police as per his Update video , August 11, 2025.
So few channels to research.
-
A principal verdict has to come from Rome at this point , and then other relevant issues will be hammered out. I am referring to the case re: the Appeal about bishop of Martinique defrocking our "Deacon". The REBUTTAL highlights this course of action, as :
"...
8. On-going Recourse Before the Holy See
The matter is currently subject to on-going recourse before the Holy See because my client was NOT in Martinique when the allegations made against him were FABRICATED by Archbishop Macaire..."
******
Plus , DrK is launching a civil court case against the police as per his Update video , August 11, 2025.
So few channels to research.
What was the outcome of you contacting +Morgan and +Ballini?
-
I will use a four letter word to reveal my behavior: tact.
Don't you suppose His Excellency Bishop Morgan has received lots of calls. , emails, one on one discussions?
My first concern is whether or not Mr. Moran is validly ordained, then we go from there. You noticed how his advocate calls him Mr !!? which raises many red flags.
Where can one find the 5 affidavits incriminating MaCaire?
What's your take on this REBUTTAL by Kershaw?
[color=var(--IXoxUe)][color=var(--IXoxUe)]TACT [/i][/font][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color]
[color=var(--IXoxUe)][color=var(--IXoxUe)]noun[/i][/font][/size][/color]
[/font][/size][/color]
- [color=var(--YLNNHc)]adroitness (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=d2ef295a8ffcb0e6&sxsrf=AE3TifMomz-6UMiSv4kiXyDwnxemiRKOEQ:1761338509985&q=adroitness&si=AMgyJEsoxf1x3izMIRdcfaP2O5eH9Yw_mnEfNo7y_uKt4CvE1DDdxSjFPRi0EwUl2xNYKFXQza1efRkJYKkEWTrqAlSugRPM5F2gzaXRan9tMJHXyNLMsIs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ692h2b2QAxU9LTQIHbefMEsQyecJegQIShAQ&biw=452&bih=742&dpr=3) and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
[/font][/size][/font][/size][/color]
-
What was the outcome of you contacting +Morgan and +Ballini?
No response. But I only have an email that I was given by a friend respicestellum2015@gmail.com also they don’t know me.
Could someone who knows them personally try to get in touch? Didn’t Baldwin say he had tried and received no reply.
-
I will use a four letter word to reveal my behavior: tact.
Don't you suppose His Excellency Bishop Morgan has received lots of calls. , emails, one on one discussions?
My first concern is whether or not Mr. Moran is validly ordained, then we go from there. You noticed how his advocate calls him Mr !!? which raises many red flags.
Where can one find the 5 affidavits incriminating MaCaire?
What's your take on this REBUTTAL by Kershaw?
[color=var(--IXoxUe)][color=var(--IXoxUe)]TACT [/i][/font][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color]
[color=var(--IXoxUe)][color=var(--IXoxUe)]noun[/i][/font][/size][/color]
[/font][/size][/color]
- [color=var(--YLNNHc)]adroitness (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=d2ef295a8ffcb0e6&sxsrf=AE3TifMomz-6UMiSv4kiXyDwnxemiRKOEQ:1761338509985&q=adroitness&si=AMgyJEsoxf1x3izMIRdcfaP2O5eH9Yw_mnEfNo7y_uKt4CvE1DDdxSjFPRi0EwUl2xNYKFXQza1efRkJYKkEWTrqAlSugRPM5F2gzaXRan9tMJHXyNLMsIs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ692h2b2QAxU9LTQIHbefMEsQyecJegQIShAQ&biw=452&bih=742&dpr=3) and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
[/font][/size][/font][/size][/color]
I think you made an excellent point there… perhaps Moran or someone who knows him could make these affidavits available publicly somewhere? Then they could be examined and verified properly.
-
No response. But I only have an email that I was given by a friend respicestellum2015@gmail.com also they don’t know me.
Could someone who knows them personally try to get in touch? Didn’t Baldwin say he had tried and received no reply.
What questions do you want answered?
-
What questions do you want answered?
I have reached out with no response either. Why dont you just provide the contact information? Are we aloud to post that here?
-
They just want to whine and complain. No action.
What was the response you received, when you inquired?
-
I will use a four letter word to reveal my behavior: tact.
Don't you suppose His Excellency Bishop Morgan has received lots of calls. , emails, one on one discussions?
My first concern is whether or not Mr. Moran is validly ordained, then we go from there. You noticed how his advocate calls him Mr !!? which raises many red flags.
Where can one find the 5 affidavits incriminating MaCaire?
What's your take on this REBUTTAL by Kershaw?
[color=var(--IXoxUe)][color=var(--IXoxUe)]TACT [/i][/font][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color]
[color=var(--IXoxUe)][color=var(--IXoxUe)]noun[/i][/font][/size][/color]
[/font][/size][/color]
- [color=var(--YLNNHc)]adroitness (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=d2ef295a8ffcb0e6&sxsrf=AE3TifMomz-6UMiSv4kiXyDwnxemiRKOEQ:1761338509985&q=adroitness&si=AMgyJEsoxf1x3izMIRdcfaP2O5eH9Yw_mnEfNo7y_uKt4CvE1DDdxSjFPRi0EwUl2xNYKFXQza1efRkJYKkEWTrqAlSugRPM5F2gzaXRan9tMJHXyNLMsIs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ692h2b2QAxU9LTQIHbefMEsQyecJegQIShAQ&biw=452&bih=742&dpr=3) and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
[/font][/size][/font][/size][/color]
So the campaign endures. You bleat for others to verify your rumors, day after day, week after week, muttering and speculating, grasping at phantoms of proof, throwing everything you can in the hope that one fragment will stick. Remarkable. Truly, you must be exhausted from doing God’s work.
-
I have reached out with no response either. Why dont you just provide the contact information? Are we aloud to post that here?
Because I don’t doxx people. That’s precisely what dragged the Kavanaughs into this mess to begin with.
-
>Rando Novus Ordoite Weaver who came out of nowhere a couple weeks ago claims that he spoke with Fr. Abraham on the phone and "overheard" +Morgan "snap, 'I've told you I am not speaking to anyone!'"
This has been going on for how long, over a year..since Kavanagh first posted about Moran? I'm supposed to believe Fr. Abraham wouldn't, at this point, know that +Morgan does not want to speak to some rando inquiring about Moran? That Fr. Abraham would first lie about Morgan not being there, and then immediately admit to the lie after Weaver asks him some "difficult questions", and try to hand the phone off to +Morgan, rather than just hang up?
What Weaver posted doesn't "prove" anything. Your dishonesty is glaring and this just "proves" that you, for whatever reason, want what Weaver claimed happened to be true
I've met and spoken with Fr. Abraham. We attended dinner with Fr. Morgan and Bishop Williamson at St. Georges house, London, and he was also at the dinner table. I can verify that Fr. Abraham is exactly the kind of simple soul who would easily get muddled when asked pressing questions. He is a very straight forward chap who would find it difficult to lie convincingly. He would also feel it rude to just "hang up". Himself and Bp. Morgan have been friends for years and year - worked together in the Philippines.
Mr. Weaver states - see his website (I checked it out to find out more about this journalist)- that he had details of the alleged six page letter from Moran's Canon Lawyer Kershaw investigated. No meeting with the local police authorities ever took place. Nor was one arranged. The letter is clearly a fraud as I suspected it was - sounded too much like our old friend "truthy". This adds to the conviction that Moran is indeed playing games.
As for contacting Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini - I have spoken to a contact who attended the Resistance Mass. He said that both Bps refuse point bank to discuss the issue. It is taboo. Bp Ballini, so I have been told, is no longer in Ireland.
So getting their perspective is not that easy.
-
Part of the article posted by this weaver character today: (https://equusasinus.net/2025/10/19/shattered-safeguards-minors-at-risk-in-traditionalist-splinter-group/)
Kerry Ciarán Moran: background and movement
"On 9 October 2025, I phoned the Resistance’s Broadstairs headquarters—Williamson’s former residence, now Morgan’s. Father Stephen Abraham, the secretary (who has his own personal history), answered. I disclosed preparing this article for WPI and sought Morgan’s comment. Abraham claimed Morgan was absent but confirmed that Moran had moved on to Norfolk, saying, “Yes, so what?” Panicking at my intent to quote him, he took the phone into the garden and spoke to Morgan. I overheard Morgan snap, “Abraham returned inside and confirmed Moran’s ordinations by Viganò and Williamson before ending the call.
I was also eventually able to speak directly with Moran by phone. I had left a message earlier in the week, and then received a call on Sunday evening 12 October. The caller would not give his name when I asked and spoke cautiously, with an accent I could not quite so I knew it was a respoinse to my phone message (nobody calls and is keen to speak to you without wanting to say who they are!) I thought it might be a Welsh accent with traces of Irish brogue. I said, “You must be Father Moran?” That much seemed to be clear – without him confirming his name – when he wanted to talk about my message left on his phone offering longer help with his situation – which I said I had heard about through ‘mutual contacts’ – and there might be a longer-term option for him at a priory in France. He did not dismiss the idea and, in the course of the conversation, confirmed that he was staying in private house which was a former convent, as three sources had previously suggested. My sole purpose was to confirm his whereabouts in order to alert the local dioceser that there was a possible risk.
In the phone call the person I was talking to had also brought up what he described as an appeal to Rome against his laicisation, a claim he has repeatedly made to people when therre were questions about his about his unusual status. I asked him directly whether he genuinely believed such an appeal was underway. After a long pause, he said only that the matter was “very complicated” and could be explained later. Before ending the call, he said he would need to discuss any move to France with others — particularly Bishop Giacomo Ballini – whom I had mentioned as the ‘mutual friend’ and my source of his phone number.
So the call confirmed his location and ongoing coordination with Resistance bishops (at least Ballini) and the following, Monday morning 13 October I provided all the relevant details to the diocesan the safeguarding officer, which were very gratefully received and he made immediate enquiries, then came back to me for a fuller diclosure of details about the entire story and dates of canon law procedures etc., which I was able to furnish from my research. A social worker had noted that such individuals excel at credible backstories, highlighting the need for rigorous checks that are absent in these splinter groups. But there was something quite chilling in that phone call and the accent I found difficult to identify. I had not been speaking to Moran! That will be explained shortly."
AND
Another section taken from the article:
Postscript: a fake lawyer as well as a fake priest
"As this story was being prepared for publication on 18 October 2025, the Editor of wherepeteris.com received an email from a person claiming to be a canon lawyer, with a six-page legal docuмent attached, betraying knowledge of the first draft of this story – obtained through a leak which I have now sourced – and threatening legal action. (I am attaching the docuмent to this website so it can be opened and viewed by readers.) The Editor said he could not possibly publish this story in this circuмstances. I said I understood and would continue to explore the situation.
The lawyer’s email addres was unusual, made using his name ****** plus @lawyer.com . an address acquired looking at the commercial website http://lawyer.com a USA platform where lawyers post their presence for clients. But UK clients cannot entand ger an enquiry, the drop down menu is just for US states. In the letter a canon lawyer’s name is given and there is indeed such a canon lawyer in Rome. But the middle initial in the email address was wrong (“L” instead of “R” – a sloppy error).
But most interesting of all was this: “I can confirm unequivocally that Mr. Weaver did not speak with my client, Mr. Ciarán Kerry Moran. Had Mr. Weaver exercised even a modicuм of journalistic diligence, he would have discerned that the individual with whom he conversed was of Caribbean extraction—a fact that is immediately apparent upon listening to the recording of the conversation. The assertion that Mr. Moran spoke “with a Welsh accent and traces of Irish inflection [sic]” is not only inaccurate but demonstrably false. It is either the product of negligent reporting or a deliberate misrepresentation.”
The man who would not give his name in his call to me was likely one of the family members sheltering Mr Moran in his present place of refuge. As you see from my account of that call to me, he never gave his name, and I struggled to identify the accent of a man known to have been born in Wales of Irish parentage. I would never have guessed Caribbean! But it all adds up when you join the dots.
The scam has worked: Moran has intimidated the Editor and he cancelled publication. In the letter Moran also betrays his bullying modus operandi threatening that he will go to the police, as he and Bishop Morgan did when he persuaded Bedfordshire police to arrest the Kavanaghs; for he starts off his letter talking about an “appointment with “the Chief Constable of Norfolk”, i.e. a man of such high rank that if you wrote him an email it would probably take two weeks to finally get to the local police station and send a constable round to see what is the problem. (Not just that, but like the Disciplinary Section of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, as I just discovered half an hour ago – see what I did there! – the chap at the top never lists his email.)
I had been told by all the professionals that these people with a history of manipulation who pose a risk are very difficult to deal with. Now I have seen it for myself and I am amazed. But the safeguarding loopholes must be fixed. Not my job. I can only flag it up. I am simply blowing the whistle, but amazed people didn’t blow it months ago!"
-
I've met and spoken with Fr. Abraham. We attended dinner with Fr. Morgan and Bishop Williamson at St. Georges house, London, and he was also at the dinner table. I can verify that Fr. Abraham is exactly the kind of simple soul who would easily get muddled when asked pressing questions. He is a very straight forward chap who would find it difficult to lie convincingly. He would also feel it rude to just "hang up". Himself and Bp. Morgan have been friends for years and year - worked together in the Philippines.
Mr. Weaver states - see his website (I checked it out to find out more about this journalist)- that he had details of the alleged six page letter from Moran's Canon Lawyer Kershaw investigated. No meeting with the local police authorities ever took place. Nor was one arranged. The letter is clearly a fraud as I suspected it was - sounded too much like our old friend "truthy". This adds to the conviction that Moran is indeed playing games.
As for contacting Bp. Morgan and Bp. Ballini - I have spoken to a contact who attended the Resistance Mass. He said that both Bps refuse point bank to discuss the issue. It is taboo. Bp Ballini, so I have been told, is no longer in Ireland.
So getting their perspective is not that easy.
Please take note everyone. The "housewife from Ireland," Boru, now claims she had dinner with Fr. Morgan and Bishop Williamson.
Mind you, she claimed the following in an earlier post,
I'm interested in dialogue. I attend an SSPX chapel, started out with the Fraternity, and have friends in the Resistance.
Now, she teaches us a thing or two about Fr. Abraham's personality and character. All of this from one dinner, apparently:
I can verify that Fr. Abraham is exactly the kind of simple soul who would easily get muddled when asked pressing questions. He is a very straight forward chap who would find it difficult to lie convincingly. He would also feel it rude to just "hang up". Himself and Bp. Morgan have been friends for years and year - worked together in the Philippines.
Then the link to Weaver is brought up. She trusts Weaver, the confirmed liar and admitted infiltrator on Cathinfo. Now Weaver is Boru's source for the truth. And she knows that the Kershaw letter is "clearly a fraud."
Mr. Weaver states - see his website (I checked it out to find out more about this journalist)- that he had details of the alleged six page letter from Moran's Canon Lawyer Kershaw investigated. No meeting with the local police authorities ever took place. Nor was one arranged. The letter is clearly a fraud as I suspected it was - sounded too much like our old friend "truthy". This adds to the conviction that Moran is indeed playing games.
Then she says she spoke to "a contact" in the Resistance who has all kinds of insider gossip for Boru the homeschooling mom with horses and dogs, who, we are expected to believe, stays up until 3am (Ireland time), so she and post the latest about Charlie Kirk or Fr. Moran, her two main obsessions.
This Boru sock-puppet came to Cathinfo in her first post gossiping about Fr. Moran, and she's still at it 4 months later. She clearly has an agenda. Her game is to blacken the reputations of the Resistance Bishops because they (and especially Moran) threaten something she is associated with. She would do well to pull back from all the calumny and detraction.
-
May God have mercy on you, maybe Boru is a rat, maybe not. What is for sure is the so called "Resistance" of Bishop Williamson ...
[sigh] yet another newbie ad hoc astroturf account. I've asked Matthew to investigate the provenance of this shit disturber.
Date Registered:October 20, 2025, 07:33:26 PMLocal Time:October 24, 2025, 09:40:24 PMLast Active:Today at 09:40:13 PM
-
Because I don’t doxx people. That’s precisely what dragged the Kavanaughs into this mess to begin with.
I think when the Cathinfo doc hits the youtube, this comment will highlight some interesting contradictions.
-
Put your efforts into finding out the truth Mr. Investigation.
Actually I have merely alerted Matthew to the pattern recognition. :popcorn:
-
I've met and spoken with Fr. Abraham. We attended dinner with Fr. Morgan and Bishop Williamson at St. Georges house, London, and he was also at the dinner table. I can verify that Fr. Abraham is exactly the kind of simple soul who would easily get muddled when asked pressing questions. He is a very straight forward chap who would find it difficult to lie convincingly. He would also feel it rude to just "hang up". Himself and Bp. Morgan have been friends for years and year - worked together in the Philippines.
Yeah, I'll take your word for it :jester:
Mr. Weaver states - see his website (I checked it out to find out more about this journalist)- that he had details of the alleged six page letter from Moran's Canon Lawyer Kershaw investigated. No meeting with the local police authorities ever took place. Nor was one arranged. The letter is clearly a fraud as I suspected it was - sounded too much like our old friend "truthy". This adds to the conviction that Moran is indeed playing games.
What are you even talking about? Weaver posted what he said is an email that was purportedly sent by Kershaw, the Canon lawyer representing Moran. This is what is related in the email regarding Moran contacting the police:
Given the risk that vigilantes, incited by such rhetoric, might take the law into their own hands and inflict serious harm upon Mr. Moran, a formal complaint was submitted to Bedfordshire Police regarding Mr. Kavanagh's conduct. Thus, the arrest of Mr. Kavanagh was a legitimate, proportional, and operational decision by Bedfordshire Police
And the "false" claim that ,+Morgan contacted the police:
14. False Claims Regarding Bishop Paul Morgan
It is categorically untrue that Bishop Paul Morgan visited any London-based police station in connection with the arrest of Mr. Brendan Kavanagh. This claim, made by Mr. Kavanagh during his interview with lan Collins, is demonstrably false and can be disproven by reference to the official records of the Metropolitan Police. No such visit occurred, and any suggestion to the contrary constitutes a fabrication. Importantly, this is not a matter of conjecture but one of verifiable fact, and any responsible journalistic outlet would be expected to seek corroboration before repeating such a claim
.
So we are told A)Moran did contact Bedfordshire police, and B)+Morgan did not have a meeting with London police
How do either of these claims prove that the "letter is clearly a fraud"?
-
I think when the Cathinfo doc hits the youtube, this comment will highlight some interesting contradictions.
Your group (the anti-Catholic, British invasion) is making a docuмentary?
-
Yeah, I'll take your word for it :jester:
What are you even talking about? Weaver posted what he said is an email that was purportedly sent by Kershaw, the Canon lawyer representing Moran. This is what is related in the email regarding Moran contacting the police:
And the "false" claim that ,+Morgan contacted the police:
.
So we are told A)Moran did contact Bedfordshire police, and B)+Morgan did not have a meeting with London police
How do either of these claims prove that the "letter is clearly a fraud"?
As I have stated several times, I do not lie. My husband and myself did indeed have dinner with Fr. Morgan, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Abraham. We know - or rather knew Fr. Morgan quite well - he was a regular visitor to Ireland - participated in the book club we had going here - and we had him over to dinner in our family home. He also oversaw St. Michael's school where our son attended. He has a lovely winsome charm about him and is the perfect host.
As for Fr. Abraham - yes, it is quite easy to see the character of some people upon one afternoon of mixing. Fr. Abraham is a simple soul who does not have the capacity to hold his ground under a line of questioning. I know this as a verifiable fact through a ex-resistance friend who questioned him about another issue. Fr. Abraham is an open book.
With regards to the so-called 6 page letter from "Kershaw" - if you read it, it opens with a warning that Moran had arranged a meeting with "Mr. Paul Sanford, Chief Constable of Norfolk police, a police force located in the jurisdiction of England and Wales" on October 18th, 2025. Through an ex-cop friend who now works in the child safety department, Weaver established that no such meeting was arranged or took place.
As for the rest of the letter - it is almost word for word - what the character 'truthy' wrote here on Cathinfo.
I do not like Mr. Weaver's wholesale attacks upon the SSPX however I concede that Mr. Weaver has a point; there have been a lot of cover ups that the SSPX should be held accountable for; Fr. Rostand immediately comes to mind. The same should be said of the Resistance. If there are possible child abusers within your midst, they need to be rooted out. It is not an attack on your beliefs - its a justifiable attack on the SSPX/Resistance lack of proper child safety protocol. This has to be addressed - openly and with great clarity. It's in all our interests.
If Mr. Moran was truly innocent, he would have quietly waited for the canonical process of appeal (if there is one) to reach its conclusion. But he did not. He deceived Archbishop Vigano into ordaining him - a mere two or three months after his laicisation - and then, without any proper training, went onto the Resistance Mass circuit keeping his identity a secret. When found out, and confronted, he went into immediate attack mode - lodging complaints to the local police force claiming harassment, and sending false 'lawyer's' letters claiming the same.
-
As I have stated several times, I do not lie. My husband and myself did indeed have dinner with Fr. Morgan, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Abraham. We know - or rather knew Fr. Morgan quite well - he was a regular visitor to Ireland - participated in the book club we had going here - and we had him over to dinner in our family home. He also oversaw St. Michael's school where our son attended. He has a lovely winsome charm about him and is the perfect host.
As for Fr. Abraham - yes, it is quite easy to see the character of some people upon one afternoon of mixing. Fr. Abraham is a simple soul who does not have the capacity to hold his ground under a line of questioning. I know this as a verifiable fact through a ex-resistance friend who questioned him about another issue. Fr. Abraham is an open book.
With regards to the so-called 6 page letter from "Kershaw" - if you read it, it opens with a warning that Moran had arranged a meeting with "Mr. Paul Sanford, Chief Constable of Norfolk police, a police force located in the jurisdiction of England and Wales" on October 18th, 2025. Through an ex-cop friend who now works in the child safety department, Weaver established that no such meeting was arranged or took place.
As for the rest of the letter - it is almost word for word - what the character 'truthy' wrote here on Cathinfo.
I do not like Mr. Weaver's wholesale attacks upon the SSPX however I concede that Mr. Weaver has a point; there have been a lot of cover ups that the SSPX should be held accountable for; Fr. Rostand immediately comes to mind. The same should be said of the Resistance. If there are possible child abusers within your midst, they need to be rooted out. It is not an attack on your beliefs - its a justifiable attack on the SSPX/Resistance lack of proper child safety protocol. This has to be addressed - openly and with great clarity. It's in all our interests.
If Mr. Moran was truly innocent, he would have quietly waited for the canonical process of appeal (if there is one) to reach its conclusion. But he did not. He deceived Archbishop Vigano into ordaining him - a mere two or three months after his laicisation - and then, without any proper training, went onto the Resistance Mass circuit keeping his identity a secret. When found out, and confronted, he went into immediate attack mode - lodging complaints to the local police force claiming harassment, and sending false 'lawyer's' letters claiming the same.
Again, honest people on Cathinfo, look carefully at what the sockpuppet says, proving that she is not just some "mum" from Ireland who attends the SSPX. She is an insider, hiding her identity to smear the reputations of certain people who threaten her own organization because they know the truth about that organization.
Boru says above,
If Mr. Moran was truly innocent, he would have quietly waited for the canonical process of appeal (if there is one) to reach its conclusion. But he did not. He deceived Archbishop Vigano into ordaining him - a mere two or three months after his laicisation - and then, without any proper training, went onto the Resistance Mass circuit keeping his identity a secret.
How does the busy "SSPX-attending" homeschool mom from Ireland have all the details about the precise type of "deception" Moran participated in with Vigano? Vigano did not specify what the "deception" was in his purported email about Moran to Dr. K.
How would she know that the "deception" was related to Moran's ordination and not to something else?
How would she know the timing of Moran's ordination--"a mere two or three months after his laicization." In her very first post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/man-arrested-for-email/msg991806/#msg991806) back on July 5, 2025, Boru said the following:
This of course brings into question the validly of his alleged ordination, especially as he was laicised only last year (June 2024) and yet presented himself as an ordained pries less than a year later. Again, I use the word alleged, because it is shrouded in secrecy; no one knows who ordained him, when he was ordained, or whether he is simply claiming to be ordained. Perhaps, and I am speculating, this is what His Grace Archbishop Vigano was alluding to when he said himself and His Lordship Bishop Williamson had been deceived.
Please note the bolded part in the above quote. Liars are notorious for contradicting themselves. In July, Boru wasn't even sure if Vigano had ordained Moran. Now, in October (with no new information about Moran's Ordination details being made public), Boru is certain that Moran "deceived" Vigano into ordaining him, and she claims to know the date of that ordination!
Ask yourself who would know the date of Moran's purported ordination by Vigano? Who would know that that purported ordination was "a mere two or three months after his [Moran's] laicization?"
The answer is only someone with inside information of this whole affair would know. A SSPX homeschool mom with dogs and horses who lives in Ireland and knew Fr. Morgan many years ago would not know these things.
This person, Boru, is not who she says she is. Don't fall for her lies.
And Boru. You are maliciously trying to ruin the reputation of a priest. You are spreading gossip and lies. Do you think that is allowed according to Catholic moral theology? For the sake of your soul, heed the words of Apocalypse 21:
8 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=21&l=8-#x) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
-
All I can say is that I don’t get the point of this thread. Nobody has all the facts. This site isn’t affiliated with the persons involved. Most people on this site aren’t even from Europe. I don’t get the point of all this back n forth.
-
All I can say is that I don’t get the point of this thread. Nobody has all the facts. This site isn’t affiliated with the persons involved. Most people on this site aren’t even from Europe. I don’t get the point of all this back n forth.
:laugh1:
-
As I have stated several times, I do not lie. …
Except that you do lie.… repeatedly.
First Lie: When I called you out for your "Hebrew thought" subversion, you first claimed there was "no rhyme or reason" to criticize you to challenge you about invoking “Hebrew thought” in a discussion about Catholic dogma— only later to claim the opposite.
Belatedly you claimed there actually was a reason to discuss “Hebrew thought”:
Second Lie: After first claiming there was "no rhyme or reason," you claimed the exact opposite of your first lie, that there was a reason, that "Hebrew" has "always" been used to mean "righteousness" and "holiness."
This use of the word Hebrew was used in order to show that the word 'righteousness' has always been, even in the OLD TESTAMENT, to mean 'holiness'
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/borupharisaical-'hebrew-thought'/msg1002047/#msg1002047
That too was a lie as even the atheistic AI Grok exposed.
Third Lie: When I deconstructed EIGHT of your argument's fundamental flaws, you claimed that I had seized on "ONE word."
That too was a lie.
Like the damned rabbis, you lie on the spot to make up any bullshit that is convenient at the moment to subvert and disrupt, even if your lie contradicts your previous lie.
You epitomize the "Hebrew thought" of the Pharisees.
-
All I can say is that I don’t get the point of this thread. Nobody has all the facts. This site isn’t affiliated with the persons involved. Most people on this site aren’t even from Europe. I don’t get the point of all this back n forth.
How many UK and Irish active members on this forum I wonder… ? Apart from myself and Boru…!!!
-
How many UK and Irish active members on this forum I wonder… ? Apart from myself and Boru…!!!
Not a lot. And even those that are, still don’t have all the facts. So what’s the point of this discussion? Nothing will be solved. Nothing to gain.
-
As I have stated several times, I do not lie. My husband and myself did indeed have dinner with Fr. Morgan, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Abraham. We know - or rather knew Fr. Morgan quite well - he was a regular visitor to Ireland - participated in the book club we had going here - and we had him over to dinner in our family home. He also oversaw St. Michael's school where our son attended. He has a lovely winsome charm about him and is the perfect host.
As for Fr. Abraham - yes, it is quite easy to see the character of some people upon one afternoon of mixing. Fr. Abraham is a simple soul who does not have the capacity to hold his ground under a line of questioning. I know this as a verifiable fact through a ex-resistance friend who questioned him about another issue. Fr. Abraham is an open book.
With regards to the so-called 6 page letter from "Kershaw" - if you read it, it opens with a warning that Moran had arranged a meeting with "Mr. Paul Sanford, Chief Constable of Norfolk police, a police force located in the jurisdiction of England and Wales" on October 18th, 2025. Through an ex-cop friend who now works in the child safety department, Weaver established that no such meeting was arranged or took place.
As for the rest of the letter - it is almost word for word - what the character 'truthy' wrote here on Cathinfo.
I do not like Mr. Weaver's wholesale attacks upon the SSPX however I concede that Mr. Weaver has a point; there have been a lot of cover ups that the SSPX should be held accountable for; Fr. Rostand immediately comes to mind. The same should be said of the Resistance. If there are possible child abusers within your midst, they need to be rooted out. It is not an attack on your beliefs - its a justifiable attack on the SSPX/Resistance lack of proper child safety protocol. This has to be addressed - openly and with great clarity. It's in all our interests.
If Mr. Moran was truly innocent, he would have quietly waited for the canonical process of appeal (if there is one) to reach its conclusion. But he did not. He deceived Archbishop Vigano into ordaining him - a mere two or three months after his laicisation - and then, without any proper training, went onto the Resistance Mass circuit keeping his identity a secret. When found out, and confronted, he went into immediate attack mode - lodging complaints to the local police force claiming harassment, and sending false 'lawyer's' letters claiming the same.
The 6-page letter from the fake priest posing as a fake lawyer on the evening of 18th October, in order to scare the Editor of WPI into cancelling the story, used a fake email address of a real canon lawyer in Rome. Now that the real email address of the real lawyer has been identified, the identity theft by Moran can be exposed (and indeed has been!)
I wonder what are the legal implications of impersonating a world class Roman canon lawyer? Maybe having the East Anglia diocese safeguarding officer and Norfolk police watching for his next move is the least of Ciaran Moran's problems now.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." (From "Marmion" by Walter Scott.)
https://equusasinus.net/2025/10/26/__alkershaw_canon_lawyer/
-
Welcome to CInfo FrereRabit...
St Evaristus, pray for us.
Any new info about " " " Father " " " Moran is greatly appreciated. This Rebuttal letter is the starting point of Part II of the "Will the real Fr. Moran please step forward " case.
Anyone could notice the >3 typos in the letter: real lawyers are really careful with any official docuмents , so I am easily persuaded that the Rebuttal is fake.
God bless+
-
Welcome to CInfo FrereRabit...
St Evaristus, pray for us.
Any new info about " " " Father " " " Moran is greatly appreciated. This Rebuttal letter is the starting point of Part II of the "Will the real Fr. Moran please step forward " case.
Anyone could notice the >3 typos in the letter: real lawyers are really careful with any official docuмents , so I am easily persuaded that the Rebuttal is fake.
God bless+
Yes, well that's a nicer welcome than the first guy! Well I followed the link from here in Cathinfo to the stuff on that website and as I was looking at the stuff about Moran, up came the new post about the fake lawyer's letter.
https://equusasinus.net/2025/10/26/__alkershaw_canon_lawyer/
It is like Umbert Eco on steroids, this fake priest story! My guess is Moran will end up in more trouble for impersonating a famous Rome legal beagle than getting ordained while hiding his past!
-
…nicer welcome than the first guy! …
In view of the tsunami of newbie infiltrators CI has suffered we are appropriately suspicious of any newbie whose very first post touches on a contentious matter. Time will tell if you are one of the faithful Catholics or not.
-
The 6-page letter from the fake priest posing as a fake lawyer on the evening of 18th October, in order to scare the Editor of WPI into cancelling the story, used a fake email address of a real canon lawyer in Rome. Now that the real email address of the real lawyer has been identified, the identity theft by Moran can be exposed (and indeed has been!)
I wonder what are the legal implications of impersonating a world class Roman canon lawyer? Maybe having the East Anglia diocese safeguarding officer and Norfolk police watching for his next move is the least of Ciaran Moran's problems now.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." (From "Marmion" by Walter Scott.)
https://equusasinus.net/2025/10/26/__alkershaw_canon_lawyer/
More irrelevant chaff from the Alinkyite "Rules for Radicals" devotees:
The Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
- 2. "Never go outside the experience of your people."
- 3. "Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy."
- 4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
- 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
- 6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
- 7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
- 8. "Keep the pressure on."
- 9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
- 10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
- 11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."
- 12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
- 13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Here is the epigraph from Rules for Radicals:
“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
-
I received an update from Bp. Stobnicki on WhatsApp (after about a month):
I am constantly travelling. Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with foreign affairs.
So, he knows, but he considers only stuff going on in Poland / Eastern Europe to concern himself, as far as I'm aware.
I also asked him about his sermons and he gave me his (?) YouTube channel link:
https://www.youtube.com/@katolickiruchoporu6394 (https://www.youtube.com/@katolickiruchoporu6394)
---
So I guess we can really only wait until either I or someone else somehow gets hold of Bp. Morgan or Ballini personally. Which is difficult, I only know that Bp. Morgan had a ceremony somewhere in France. I don't have the e-mails nor any way to travel right now. I am busy writing software, personally.
Until then, a reminder: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING RUMORS AND ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT PROOF. It could be that the priest in question is innocent and then you're all in hell because of defamation, rash judgement, etc. Whatever the priest in question has done or not done that's his problem but what you run your mouth on the internet, that's your problem. Always assume innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around.
So far the only thing we have are allegations from a diocese (without any proof or court docuмents or testimony or anything, really), insinuations from the Taylor-Hewkoite crowd, hit pieces from the FSSP-Indult crowd and an e-mail from Viganó that "he shouldn't be trusted, but I don't know what he did". So that's the level of "evidence" we're going on. What we don't have is any real evidence on who did exactly what. So please just post here if you have any status updates (instead of just posting the next "Catholic opinion piece" and possibly landing in hell because of rash judgement).
We don't even know if Bp. Morgan is culpable, whether even knows how much of a scandal this was (a lot of older priests simply ignore everything digital). A lot of parts of the story also don't make any sense, like why Bp. Morgan would suddenly block Kavanaugh, an old friend of Bp. Williamson, that's just very out-of-character for him, as I've heard that he has a diplomatic personality. Why was "Fr. Moran", an English-Irish "priest", trained in a diocese in the French Carribeans? How did Kavanaugh know that he should contact a diocese located on the other side of the planet, if the priest supposedly didn't even reveal who ordained him? Why did he suddenly "turn" on the Resistance after being a long-time friend?
A lot of the details of this story just don't make any sense and we don't have any real new information since June. The "letter" update by some random Spanish priest doesn't have ANY new information, just reurgitating what we already know (and of course he presumes guilt without proof). I don't know who's lying or who's trustworthy or which agenda these actors all have, but please stop the rumoring for now.
-
If I meet a "priest" and he will not even tell me who ordained him, he is not even stepping foot on my driveway.
Agreed 100%!!!
-
Agreed 100%!!!
I believe the Kavanaghs were told by Fr Moran that +Williamson ordained him. Fr Moran was also known to another British Trad Catholic family who don’t attend resistance. Plus Bp Morgan recommended Moran. So it was understandable they allowed Moran on their property despite having reservations because of his odd behaviour.