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.

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 (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.

‘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.

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."

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.

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).

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?

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.