Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103]

Author Topic: Man arrested for email  (Read 173148 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Man arrested for email
« Reply #510 on: January 14, 2026, 11:01:18 AM »
Quote from: Justinian on January 14, 2026, 04:32:14 AM
Moran was laicised due to violation of the 6th commandment with a minor. He was a well known groomer of boys within the diocese of Cardiff. I’m acquainted with priests in Wales who verify this and were glad when he left the parish and went to the Caribbean.

There's no way that Cardiff went about persecuting Moran to the ends of the earth because of he himself had been abused as a minor and yet didn't even file charges.  If people are stupid enough to buy this story, they get what they deserve.  So, because he was the victim of some unreported abuse himself, they'd go find him in the Caribbean and then again found +Vigano to go after him there.  That, and the Abraham case, remind me of Urrutigoity claiming the allegations were slander made by sedevacantists who hated him for being staunchly anti-sedevacantist.  Just to accept that excuse explicitly slandered Father Morello.  To think that a Traditional priest would commit the grave sin of calumny just because Urrutigoity was anti-SV, it's not only absurd, but it also slanders Fr. Morello.

I knew another one who was later "outed" who claimed that the Conciliars persecuted him just because he was "too conservative".  Yeah ... riiiiight.  SOMEtimes that does happen, but when that claim is accompanied by excuse about being too conservative, sedevacantists, or non-sedevacantist, or whatever ... that individual needs to be shown the door.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Man arrested for email
« Reply #511 on: January 14, 2026, 11:03:39 AM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 14, 2026, 06:18:07 AM
This is a direct contradiction of Fr Pivert who was on the St Charles Borromeo Commission with the SSPX that judged his case, and as such, discredits everything else you say.
Your sources are not reliable.

Or Fr. Pivert's version is inaccurate, or the truth is somewhere in between.  Generally with predators, where there's smoke, there's fire.  No, they did not toss Fr. Abraham for being "Resistance".

If it was all made up, then, eh? ... why did Bishop Williamson put any restrictions on him at all?

What, then, caused the accusations to be made against him in the first place?  Did the SSPX secretly put the accusers up to it so they had an excuse to get rid of him for being "Resistance"?

That's absurd.  They could have just tossed him for being ... Resistance.  That wouldn't have been the first time.  Why make up all these insinuations regarding mora deviancy just to find an "excuse" to get rid of him or restrict his activities?  They could do that for no reason at all.  That's just dumb.

People need to start thinking, and not just circling the wagons around their own little group.

There was no conspiracy of SSPX putting the original accusers up to it because Fr. Abraham had been Resistance.  That also is slanderous against the SSPX to think they would stoop that low.  At the very least there's some smoke there, enough where even Bishop Wiliamson SAYS he had restricted Fr. Abraham ... except that Church Militant followed him around and concluded that was not actually the case.

Frankly, if I were a priest, and there had been a cloud of suspicion over me along these lines, I'd retire from "public ministry" until it had been put to rest.
Logged

Offline Justinian

Re: Man arrested for email
« Reply #512 on: January 14, 2026, 11:20:53 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 14, 2026, 11:03:39 AM
Or Fr. Pivert's version is inaccurate, or the truth is somewhere in between.  Generally with predators, where there's smoke, there's fire.  No, they did not toss Fr. Abraham for being "Resistance".

If it was all made up, then, eh? ... why did Bishop Williamson put any restrictions on him at all?

What, then, caused the accusations to be made against him in the first place?  Did the SSPX secretly put the accusers up to it so they had an excuse to get rid of him for being "Resistance"?

That's absurd.  They could have just tossed him for being ... Resistance.  That wouldn't have been the first time.  Why make up all these insinuations regarding mora deviancy just to find an "excuse" to get rid of him or restrict his activities?  They could do that for no reason at all.  That's just dumb.

People need to start thinking, and not just circling the wagons around their own little group.

There was no conspiracy of SSPX putting the original accusers up to it because Fr. Abraham had been Resistance.  That also is slanderous against the SSPX to think they would stoop that low.  At the very least there's some smoke there, enough where even Bishop Wiliamson SAYS he had restricted Fr. Abraham ... except that Church Militant followed him around and concluded that was not actually the case.

Frankly, if I were a priest, and there had been a cloud of suspicion over me along these lines, I'd retire from "public ministry" until it had been put to rest.
Everything you have said is correct. You are of course absolutely right. It’s common for abuser priests to claim persecution because they were ‘too traditional’.

I met Fr Abraham when he was in London UK before he joined resistance. At the time Bp Williamson was still with SSPX. This priest was in kitchen preparing food and doing jobs I’d expect of a female housekeeper. I asked who this male ‘housekeeper’ was and was told privately by another SSPX priest that Fr A wasn’t allowed to have any public ministry because of past misdemeanours related to underage boys. So at this point Fr A wasn’t resistance. The SSPX had no reason to remove him from public ministry if he was completely innocent. He has admitted privately to others that he did do something immoral and is still tempted by young boys. 
Logged

Offline Justinian

Re: Man arrested for email
« Reply #513 on: January 14, 2026, 11:24:40 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 14, 2026, 11:03:39 AM
Or Fr. Pivert's version is inaccurate, or the truth is somewhere in between.  Generally with predators, where there's smoke, there's fire.  No, they did not toss Fr. Abraham for being "Resistance".

If it was all made up, then, eh? ... why did Bishop Williamson put any restrictions on him at all?

What, then, caused the accusations to be made against him in the first place?  Did the SSPX secretly put the accusers up to it so they had an excuse to get rid of him for being "Resistance"?

That's absurd.  They could have just tossed him for being ... Resistance.  That wouldn't have been the first time.  Why make up all these insinuations regarding mora deviancy just to find an "excuse" to get rid of him or restrict his activities?  They could do that for no reason at all.  That's just dumb.

People need to start thinking, and not just circling the wagons around their own little group.

There was no conspiracy of SSPX putting the original accusers up to it because Fr. Abraham had been Resistance.  That also is slanderous against the SSPX to think they would stoop that low.  At the very least there's some smoke there, enough where even Bishop Wiliamson SAYS he had restricted Fr. Abraham ... except that Church Militant followed him around and concluded that was not actually the case.

Frankly, if I were a priest, and there had been a cloud of suspicion over me along these lines, I'd retire from "public ministry" until it had been put to rest.
Exactly. Most priests would retire from public ministry until their name was cleared. Not go to +Vigano and then to +Williamson and get ordained. It all points to him being a shady character. His reputation in the Welsh diocese is very bad.

Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Man arrested for email
« Reply #514 on: January 15, 2026, 10:10:53 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 14, 2026, 10:53:33 AM
How much longer are people going to not see throught the old "they persecuted me cuz I was like the Resistance and stuff, so they made it all up that I was grooming kids" crap.  These protections of even credibly-accused pedophiles are what discredit Traditional Catholicism.

Pedophiles happen, and they sneak in and get through, etc.  People know this.  But the COVERUP is what blows up in their faces.  If they had not learned this from the Conciliar saga regarding this matter, then they're thicker than a box of rocks (to mix metaphors).  So thinking you're going to save the "reputation" of your group by covering up these types of crimes ... makes zero sense and will only have the opposite effect.

NOTHING was forcing +Ballini / +Morgan to accept working with this Moran character.  They could have just said, "thanks but no thanks" and let him find his own way.
Both can, and probably are, true.  The new-sspx has definitely politically persecuted priests who disagreed with them on new-Rome.  Also, pedo priests use this (and other) excuses to deflect guilt. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103]
« previous next »