Quote from: Angelus
Here is the other side presented by Moran's friend, Truthy. Take note of the part in red.

3
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Man arrested for email
« 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.




The Archbishop of Martinique, the accuser and judge of Fr Moran.




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 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Angelus 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.

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)