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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.?