I don't think the word “moron” falls under the rubric that you've established. The word was originally a diagnostic term to denote someone of a specifically-low intelligence.
Although the word ultimately took on a perjorative meaning, it still basically means “stupid.” It is not beyond human capacity to judge specific persons as having low intelligence. As well, a person's intelligence is not an attribute of the inner self, hidden away in the recesses of each human heart. Also, one’s intelligence isn't correlated with one’s moral worth or standing before God.
This is similar to the word “idiot.”
Neither of these words directly calls into question a person's worth, dignity, moral goodness, or standing before God.
As for “heretical,” that's an adjective. In giving your blessing, as it were, to words like "foolish," which is merely the adjectival form of fool, it seems difficult to now say that one may describe a person as “foolish,” but not has “heretical.”
However, although one should be careful about using the term, I wouldn't say that we may not justly apply the word “heretic” to..., ahem,... heretics. Some Catholics clearly espouse heresy. If they do so persistently, consistently, then they are heretics. It may be that, not having had proper catechesis, some Catholics don't know any better. That's why there is the term, “material heretic,” for someone who is materially in heresy, but doesn't mean to be a heretic.
On the other hand, there are people, like Nazi Pelosi, who have been specifically and privately instructed by their bishops to correct their heretical views. Some of these people, like Nazi Pelosi, obstinately persist in their heresy. They are formal heretics.
Only God can read the heart, but we can say of such people that they are in danger of damnation specifically for their manifest formal heresy.
Now, as to the term, “heretical moron,” I'd say that if someone is truly of low intelligence, there should be a heavy presumption that the individual’s heresy is most likely material, and could well be beyond correction.
As for Cardinal George, I don't know whether he's a heretical moron or not. I don't pay much attention to him. If he is like other bishops, then there may be some legitimate question about his intelligence. The actions of bishops in the United States in the aggregate often suggest either stupidity or malevolence. It's more charitable to think someone is stupid rather than evil, at least until the latter is more conclusively demonstrated.
And, before you object to calling someone, “evil,” I hasten to add that I'm not saying that any person is intrinsically evil, as that's not possible, only that the person lives a life that is manifestly permeated through-and-through with evil.
sitetest
The person being exposed to contempt is Archbishop George. The reason for it is that he took the occasion --- while in the very act of morally and politically condemning gay pseudomarriage--- to say that parents,for pastoral purposes, ought not to break off contact with their children.
Calling him a heretical moron, in this context, is unjust and stupid and vicious.
That's my judgment. A judgment I am entitled to make.